Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill,

Yeadon Waterworks Bill [Lords,]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES JOINT

ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (NO. 2) BILL,

"to confer upon the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority powers to acquire lands and to construct a generating station and other works; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.

Address for Return
showing the number of Accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by vehicles in streets, roads, or public places; and the number of persons killed or injured by such accidents in Great Britain during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1926 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 64, of Session 1926)."—[Captain King.]

Colonel GRETTON: Is it intended that this Return shall show the classes of vehicles which cause the accidents, distinguishing motor vehicles from horse-drawn vehicles?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I will make inquiries, but I have no doubt that will be done if possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

DRUG TRAFFIC.

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Report of the investigators of the Advisory Committee of the League of Nations on. Opium and Drug Addiction, wherein they stated that there are 700,000 men and women engaged in Europe in the illicit sale of cocaine, morphia, heroin, and opium, a good percentage of these being employed in Great Britain, he can state what action has been taken with reference to the recommendation to the British delegate of the League that an inquiry should be instituted amongst chemical manufacturers for the purpose of discovering to whom these drugs are supplied?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Advisory Committee has no investigators and no such Report as he mentions has been made. Neither the Advisory Committee, nor, so far as I am aware, any other responsible body has made the statement mentioned by him, which I am informed is without foundation. The recommendation which he describes as made to the British delegate was a recommendation adopted by the Advisory Committee at its recent meeting on the proposal of the British delegate. The Council of the League have instructed the Secretary-General to bring it to the attention of Governments.

Colonel DAY: Are the recommendations of the British delegate going to be carried out?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I cannot say now.

DANZIG (LOAN).

Mr. SPOOR: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what conditions the League of Nations loans for the City and Harbour of Danzig are to be raised?

Mr. L0CKER-LAMPS0N: There is no contemplated League of Nations loan for the Danzig Harbour, though I under-
stand the Danzig Harbour Board are proposing to raise a loan on their own authority. With regard to the League of Nations loan for the Free City of Danzig, I would refer the hon. Member to the Reports of the League Meetings in December and March last.

POLISH UPPER SILESIA (GERMAN CHILDREN).

Mr. SPOOR: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the result of the appeals to the League of Nations Council at its recent meeting from Germans resident in Polish Upper Silesia regarding the question of German instruction for the German-speaking children in certain districts?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The settlement of this question, which received the approval of both the Polish and German Governments, followed substantially the lines already reported in the Press. A full summary of the proceedings at Geneva will shortly be published.

GEORGIA.

Commander BELLAIRS: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the state of affairs in Georgia has come before the League of Nations; and, in view of the fact that Georgia was an independent Socialist republic during the period the League of Nations has been working, whether the question of the suppression of the liberties of that republic has ever been brought before the League?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative, but the circumstances of the case have made it impossible for the League to take any action in the matter.

ALBANIA (TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY).

Mr. PONSONBY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the declaration signed at Paris on 9th November, 1921, by the Governments of the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, with regard to the responsibility of the Council of the League of Nations for the territorial integrity of Albania, the question of the alleged dangers on the Albanian frontier
will be referred to the Council of the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask the hon. Member to refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) on 23rd March.

Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask whether there is not reluctance on the part of the Powers to allow any question which concerns them to go before the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not think that statement is at all accurate. We ourselves gladly brought our dispute with Turkey as to the boundary of Iraq before the League of Nations. In this case I hope the matter is going to be settled among the parties interested without reference to the League of Nations, and if such a direct settlement can be made, it is infinitely better than an appeal to other bodies.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

FOREIGN OFFICE RECORDS (EDITOR'S SALARY).

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason for the increase of the salary of the editor of Foreign Office publication of pre-War records from £750 in 1926 to £1,075 in 1927; and if the cost-of-living bonus is payable in addition to this salary?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The annual salary of the editor has not been increased. The increase of the amount shown in the Estimates is due to the fact that the full year's salary was not paid in previous years, part of it being payable only on the completion of half the work. Provision has been made for the possibility of half the work being completed during the coming year. Cost-of-living bonus is not payable in addition.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (DIRECTOR'S SALARY).

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Director of the Foreign Division of the Department of Overseas Trade receives the cost-of-living bonus in addition to his salary of £1,368 and, if so, what is
the amount of the bonus; and why in addition this official receives an allowance of £300 from the Department of Overseas Trade?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The sum of £1,368 provided for the Director of the Foreign Division of the Department of Overseas Trade includes the cost-of-living bonus. This officer was previously Commercial Counsellor in Japan, and received as such a salary of 1,700, plus bonus and allowances. In view of his special qualifications, it was considered desirable, in the interests of the public service, that he should be appointed to the post of Director of the Foreign Division on the normal scale of £1,000 rising to£1,200 per annum, and, in part compensation for the loss in salary and allowances entailed by the transfer, he was given an allowance of £300 per annum. On the other hand, the present occupant of the post in Japan receives salary on a lower scale, and, taking the two posts together, there is a small saving to the Exchequer.

CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE, KEW (DISCHARGES).

Mr. LANSBURY: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, with regard to the proposed discharge of 130 men at present engaged at Kew, he is aware that most of these men are ex-service men, though not of the permanent established class, owing to their physical condition preventing service overseas during the late War; that all of them have been in the service of the Department for the past six years; and whether, before assenting to the discharge of any of these or other members of the staff, he will, in view of the difficulty such men will experience in obtaining fresh employment, reconsider the whole question and endeavour to find them useful employment in other sections of his Department or in other Government establishments?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): A reduction in the temporary staff at the Claims and Record Office, Kew, is necessary owing to a diminution in the volume of the work at that office. In selecting persons for discharge, careful regard has been paid to the recommendations made by the Lytton Committee as to the preference to be shown to the various cate-
gories of ex-service men in relation to employment in the Government service. Every effort will be made, subject to the usual rules as to preference, to re-allocate through the Joint Substitution Board redundant ex-service personnel, but I am afraid it is not possible to retain the staff now under notice of discharge pending their possible re-allocation to other Government Departments.

Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the state of the labour market, have not the Government some responsibility towards these men, and could not they be kept on temporarily until the right hon. Gentleman can discover whether there is a chance of employment for them in other Government Departments?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: For one thing, the condition of the labour market, speaking generally, is improving. On the other hand, we are taking every possible care, so far as there are discharges, to see that it is done with the least possible hardship, but we have always to consider the balance between two things—the interest of the individual man involved, and the interest of the expense of governing the country; and we are trying to do our best in these circumstances.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although trade may be improving, there is an enormous number of men out of work,, and is he going to allow a further number of ex-service men to be thrown on the scrap-heap of pauperism as. a reward for their patriotism?

Mr. R. MORRISON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman do something to have these men, who have given satisfactory service so far, transferred to other Government Departments where systematic overtime is being worked?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Every effort is being made, as my answer indicates, through the Joint Substitution Board, to see that they shall be transferred where such transfer is possible.

AIR MINISTRY (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. E. BROWN: 76 and 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if any ex-service architectural and engineering assistants and/or draughtsmen who have performed the duties of their posts in the Air Ministry for 12 months or
upwards have received notification of their possible discharge at an early date; and whether any non-service men in these grades are being retained;
(2) how many ex-service men in his Department are at present under notice of discharge or warning; what are the reasons in each case; whether any non-service staff or ex-service men of lower categories are being retained in sections where discharges are being made; and, if so, what is the reason for departing from the order of discharge as laid down in the Lytton Report?

Sir S. HOARE: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reply to these two questions, which is rather long.

Following is the reply:

As regards the headquarters staff of the Air Ministry, four ex-service men are under notice of discharge, and 11 others have been warned unofficially that, in consequence of the expected reduction of work, it may become necessary to give them notice of discharge on 30th June next. Of the four under notice, two have been holding single specialist posts, and are being discharged on the reduction of their posts; no non-service or lower category ex-service man is being retained on similar work. The third is being discharged because of his unsuitability for his post. The fourth is filling a post appropriate to established civil servants of the executive class, and is to be replaced (probably in August next) by such an officer, in accordance with the policy explained in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir N. Moore) on 29th March, 1926. The 11 men who have received preliminary warning of possible notice of discharge on 30th June have been employed in the drawing offices of the Directorate of Works and Buildings under purely temporary conditions of service. One non-service and a few ex-service men of lower category are being retained, after special selection, in the drawing offices; their retention is necessary in the interests of the efficiency of the public service.

As regards out-station staff, eight ex-service men are under notice of discharge on account of reduction of staff. A non-service man of the same grade as one of those under notice of discharge is being retained, but only for the period necessary
to complete the temporary work for which he was engaged; it would not be possible to have it completed by one of his ex-service colleagues. Ex-service men of lower category than some of those under notice are being retained, in the interests of the efficiency of the public service.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if any ex-service pre-War employes of the Royal Air-craft establishment, South Farnborough, now temporarily employed at the Royal Aircraft establishment, have not been selected for establishment while non-service men of the same grade have been selected?

Sir S. HOARE: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to three ex-service men now serving as temporary clerks. These men, who were industrials at the outbreak of war, were not eligible for establishment without examination. Two of them competed at an examination for establishment and failed. The third elected not to compete. There have been two other examinations at which these men might have competed for establishment, at each of which preference was given to ex-service candidates. Three non-service men appointed as clerks since the War have been established by virtue of their success at a competitive examination.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any non-service draughtsmen are employed at the Royal Airship works; and, if so, why those posts have not been filled by ex-service men?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is that ex-service men with suitable qualifications were not available. The appointment of non-service men on this ground was concurred in by the Joint Substitution. Board.

TELEGRAMS AND TELEPHONES (COST).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 97.
asked the Postmaster-General the total cost of telegrams and telephones in all the Government Departments in 1926–27 and 1913–14?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): As the answer involves a table of figures, I will,
with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I am not in a position to furnish complete figures as regards telegrams sent by Government Departments, because (1) some inland telegrams so sent have been paid for in cash at the time of despatch, and have not been specially recorded, and (2) some foreign telegrams have been handed direct to the cable companies, and have not been dealt with by the Post Office.

Subject to these reservations, the figures are as follow:





1913–14.
1926–27.





£
£


Telegrams:






Inland
…
…
32,000
38,600*


Telephones:






Imperial
…
…
23,000
46,500


Foreign
…
…
74,500
320,000*


*Note.—These figures were inflated at the time of the General Strike.

It is to be observed that between the two periods in question the inland telegraph tariff was increased by about 100 per cent. and the telephone tariff by nearly 50 per cent.

REVENUE STAMPING OFFICE, BRISTOL.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 107.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the head revenue office for stamping documents, situated in Baldwin Street, Bristol, is closed between the hours of one o'clock and two o'clock, thus causing considerable inconvenience to business houses; and, in view of the fact that the office hours are only between the hours of ten o'clock and four o'clock, whether he can re-arrange the hours of duties of the assistants so that the office may be open for the full period?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I regret that it is not possible, consistently with economy, to provide more than one officer qualified to assess the stamp duty on documents presented for stamping. So long as the volume of work continues to justify only one such officer, I trust that business houses in Bristol will bear with the inconvenience of midday closing.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Colonel GRETTON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he proposes to bring to the notice of the League of Nations the present situation in China and the attacks upon Europeans established by treaties in that country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) and Peckham (Mr. Dalton) on the 16th February, to which I have nothing to add.

CIVIL WAR (BRITISH NEUTRALITY).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the policy of complete neutrality as between North and South in China which has been observed by His Majesty's forces in Shanghai will be observed also as between any rival parties among the Nationalist forces?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have no intention of being drawn into the Chinese civil war, whatever form it may assume.

HANKOW (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. BENNETT: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the new Regulations for the government of the special administrative district, No. 3, of Hankow provide that the director of the Municipal Bureau must be a subject of Chinese nationality?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Regulations contain no specific provision to this effect.

Mr. BENNETT: Is there no safeguard in the Treaty to prevent the appointment by the Chinese Government to this very important post of someone with a strong anti-British bias, as, for instance, a Russian Bolshevist?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope that the contingency hinted at by my hon. Friend will not occur.

TRADING RIGHTS (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what rights, if any, are possessed by a British subject seeking to trade in those parts of China which are outside the Treaty port areas?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: British subjects duly provided with passports may travel for purposes of trade to all parts of the interior of China, may buy native produce at places in the interior and convey it thence to a Treaty port, and may convey foreign imports from the Treaty port to places in the interior. They may employ Chinese agents to convey such goods on their behalf retaining the ownership of the goods, the taxation of which in transit is regulated by Treaty; but as British subjects may acquire land and buildings only in the Treaty port areas they may not establish any shop or business outside those areas. Vessels under the British flag have the right under certain conditions to navigate the inland waters of China.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand from the answer that Chinamen in this country have greater trading rights than Britons enjoy in China?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is so.

Mr. BECKETT: Is it a fact that the Chinese have not yet sent troops to Britain, and therefore can the hon. Gentleman expect—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 15 and 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if his attention has been drawn to the telegram sent to the workers of Shanghai from Moscow by the Profintern, Red International of Trade Unions, whose officials are appointed by the Soviet Government, admonishing them that victory is incomplete while a single foreign soldier remains on foreign soil; and what action he proposes to take in view of his recent Note to the Russian Government;
(2) if his attention has been drawn to an appeal issued by the Communist International, whose officials are appointed by the Soviet Government, to the workers of the world, particularly to the oppressed Colonial peoples, to use all possible means to impede the transport of fresh troops and munitions to China by civilised barbarians, headed by English and American robbers, who have just killed thousands of Chinese workers at Nanking; and what action, in view of his recent Note to the Russian Government, he proposes to take?

Mr. DIXEY: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent events in China and their connection with Soviet and British propaganda, he now intends to take any further action with regard to the last Russian Note?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Appeals of this kind form part of the ordinary programme of the Third International, and recent events in China have provided them and the Profintern with a fresh opportunity of misleading the opinion of the world by these entirely false statements. In answer to the last part of both of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen's questions, I would refer to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) on Monday last.

Sir A. KNOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether in the history of this country there has ever been a Government which has been so insulted by any foreign Government as this present Conservative Government has been by the Soviet Government?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before that question is answered, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has formed any opinion as to what action the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir A Knox) would have him take?

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend regards such action as unfriendly towards this country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already expressed the views of His Majesty's Government in language which,. I think, is plain, dignified and definite.

Mr. EVERARD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he might learn something from the way the Pekin Government dealt with this matter?

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman express an opinion upon the action of the Diplomatic Corps, reported in the Press, in ordering an invasion of the Russian Embassy in Pekin?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put a question down.

SHANGHAI SUPREME COURT.

Mr. BECKETT: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the cases heard by His
Majesty s Supreme Court at Shanghai; and whether trials in that Court are confined to disputes and cases arising within the International Concession at Shanghai, or if the Court deals with all cases where British nationals sue Chinese nationals irrespective of the part of China in which the British national is residing?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Supreme Court for China, which usually sits at Shanghai, but may sit anywhere in China, exercises full civil and criminal jurisdiction in respect of British subjects throughout the whole of the dominions of the Republic of China, with the exception of the Kashgar Consular District. For detailed information on the subject I would refer the hon. Member to Part 11 of the China Order in Council, 1925. No cases in which a British subject sues a Chinese citizen are heard in British Courts in China, except where the Chinese citizen, with the consent of his national authorities, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court in a particular case.

Mr. BECKETT: Am I right in understanding from that reply that all the Chinese nationals who sue British nationals must appear before this Court in whatever part of China they are?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is so, but perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.

Mr. BECKETT: I have put the question down.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If my answer is not sufficiently explicit to the hon. Member, will he kindly put down a further question which will lead to the explanation he requires?

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Are not the nationals of any country extraordinarily fortunate if they can sue British nationals in any British Court in any part of the world?

HANKOW (ADMINISTRATION).

Lieut-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in connection with the Hankow Agreement the provision that three members of the municipal bureau shall be British would be complied with by the appointment of three
Chinese or other Orientals not of British parentage; whether a director of the bureau has yet been appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Nationalist Government; if so, who has been appointed; what powers will be vested in the director independent of control by the newly constituted municipal authority?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: For the first year the Regulations provide that the British members shall be nominated by His Majesty's Consul-General, who has accordingly nominated Mr. Charle-ton (of the Asiatic Petroleum Company, Limited), Mr. Dixon (of Messrs. Mackenzie and Company, Limited), and Mr. Dupree (of Messrs. Jardine, Mathison and Company, Limited). Thereafter the three British members of the Council are not to be appointed but to be elected from among the persons entitled to vote, who must be lot-holders or householders in the district and paying to the Bureau sundry taxes (land and house taxes) to the amount of not less than taels 25 (about £4) per annum. There is no reason to suppose that under this provision persons of other than British race would be elected as British members of the Council. The Mayor of Wuchang has been appointed Director of the Bureau. The Regulations provide that the Director shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the district and that the Chief of Police shall be under his control. They also provide, however, that the Council shall have authority to discuss and decide all questions connected with the management and administration of the district, and that resolutions passed by the Council shall be carried out by the Bureau.

Mr. BECKETT: Does the hon. Gentleman think it proper, in the circumstances in China, that members representing firms which employ Chinese child labour should be put on this Commission?

NANKING OUTRAGES.

Mr. THURTLE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any warning was issued to British nationals to withdraw from Nanking; and, if so, on what date was such warning first issued?

Mr. MOSLEY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state if any warning was given to
the British residents in Nanking advising them to evacuate that city; if so, on what date the warning was given: and what steps were taken to assist the evacuation?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will answer these questions together. On 20th March His Majesty's Consul-General at Nanking advised that all British women and children who could leave the port should do so with as little delay as possible. The evacuation was carried out in accordance with a scheme already prepared, but I have no information as to its details. By the evening of 22nd March only six British women remained in Nanking.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the possibility of fighting taking place in Nanking, can the right hon. Gentleman say why warning was not given to British nationals earlier than 20th March?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid it was because too much faith was placed on the assurances which we had received from the Chinese.

Mr. MOSLEY: Was no warning given to the inhabitants of Nanking on 1st November last, as stated previously by the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no recollection of it, but if I have stated previously that a warning was given on 1st November, I have no doubt that I was correctly informed, and that it was correct.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many women and children left Nanking?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure that I have that figure; certainly I have not got it with me now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has yet decided upon its course of action with regard to the injuries suffered by foreigners, including our own nationals, in Nanking, and, if so, what action is contemplated; whether combined action is being taken in conjunction with other Governments, and, if so, with which Governments, or are we taking independent action; and whether the offer of General Chiang-Kai-Shek to pay compen-
sation and damages for the outrages at Nanking is to be accepted?

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 29 and 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what action he proposes to take in consequence of the recent disturbances which have taken place at Nanking;
(2) whether he can see his way to recommend the appointment of an international body, through the League of Nations, to inquire into the recent losses of life and property in Nanking?

Mr. VIANT: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the slight difference in uniform worn by the soldiers of the Cantonese armies and that worn in the Northern armies may have led to confusion between the two armies and the soldiers belonging to them, he will reconsider his decision not to have an inquiry into the recent events at Nanking?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the hon. Members concerned will allow me to deal with these questions in the debate, when I shall be prepared to give as full an answer as is at present possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course, I had put down this question before the debate was decided on; but can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the terms of the Note to the Cantonese Government have been drawn up, and whether he can give them to the House during the debate this afternoon?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will give what information I can to the House, but it will be very limited.

Mr. PONSONBY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to avoid precipitating a dangerous situation and further increasing the animosity which has arisen between the Cantonese Government and the Powers concerned in the incidents reported from Nanking, His Majesty's Government will invite the intervention of the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) and Peckham (Mr. Dalton) on 16th February, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. STAMFORD: 32.
asked tie Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether Captain Spear, who was one of the British subjects wounded at Nanking, was employed on intelligence work; what was the nature of the work; and by what department he is employed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington- Evans): I have been asked to reply. Captain Spear is the intelligence officer of the 20th Indian Infantry Brigade operating under the command of General Duncan at Shanghai.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask how it was that this gentleman was at Nanking at all, in view of the condition of affairs at Nanking?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He was there in pursuance of his duty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but is it usual when you send an army to an International Settlement to send intelligence officers all over the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer !"]

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He was there in pursuance of his duty.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that all over China there are persons of this nature in pursuance of this duty?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir. The hon. and gallant Member is to understand that Captain Spear was at Nanking in pursuance of his duty.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is not Nanking a treaty port in which we have certain rights?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It certainly was a treaty port.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that the more intelligence the Army has at its disposal the better?

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 100.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the warships which shelled Nanking were a part of the defence force sent recently from this country or whether they were part of the normal naval forces kept in Chinese waters?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. Only one British warship, H.M.S. "Emerald" opened
fire at Nanking. The "Emerald" is one of the vessels sent from the East Indies Station to reinforce the China Squadron.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 103.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of false reports being circulated in regard to recent happenings in Nanking, he will consider taking suitable action against the authors or publishers of the same?

Sir H. BARNSTON: These reports were very fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Monday and there can be no excuse for their further circulation. Such misstatements are deplorable, but they are not illegal, and my right hon. Friend is not in a position to take action against those responsible for them.

SHANGHAI INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT.

Mr. WELLOCK: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information showing how many British and Chinese subjects have been arrested in the international settlement since 1st January,, 1927; how many are awaiting trial; how many are in prison; and what are the offences with which they are charged?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on any of these points.

BRITISH NAVY (SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA).

Sir F. HALL: 35.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the handbills which have been circulated among British sailors serving in Chinese waters urging them to mutiny; and whether any steps have been taken to ascertain who is responsible for this and other attempts to subvert members of His Majesty's Forces?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No official information has been received in regard to the incident referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask my right hon. Friend what he means by "No official information has been received"? Has the matter been taken up at all in an endeavour to find out whence this propaganda emanated?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I say, I have no official information. I cannot act until
I have. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise—if this took place at all—that it is at a great distance away, and it will take time to get any information as to the nature of it.

CO-OPERATION WITH UNITED STATES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any effort has been made by communication with Washington to obtain complete unity of aim and method with regard to the Chinese situation; and, if not, will he endeavour to effect such a result even by the mission to America of a Cabinet colleague.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): His Majesty's Government are in constant touch with the United States Government through the usual diplomatic channels and exchange views with them on the various aspects of the Chinese situation as they arise. I see no need to supplement this channel of communication by the despatch of a special mission.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the very-fact that we have had to send a Note to the Southern Chinese Government on our own proof positive that there is not that co-operation with America which there ought to be if peace is to be preserved?

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not possible to speak on the telephone to America now, and cannot we discuss it in that way?

POLAND.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information from His Majesty's Minister at Warsaw as to the suppression of the party of the White Ruthene Minority by the Polish Government; and, if so, if he will summarise the matter of the communication?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The reports on this subject from His Majesty's Minister at Warsaw do not differ substantially from the full accounts which have appeared in the Press, and I, therefore, think it unnecessary to summarise them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it from that answer that this party has been suppressed, and can the League of Nations do nothing in the matter?

GERMANY (MUNITIONS OF WAR).

Viscount SANDON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that German expenditure on munitions and equipment,, which does not include tanks, gas equipment, or heavy artillery, is twice as heavy as the total expenditure on all munitions and equipment in this country, he will refer the matter to the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is difficult to make an accurate comparison between the various headings of military expenditure in this country and in Germany in view of the widely divergent bases on which such expenditure is reckoned in the two countries. In any case, unless some clear infraction of Part V of the Treaty of Versailles is reported, there can be no question of appeal to the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

GENERAL AND CLASS WELFARE REQUEST, 1926.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 39.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the decision on the 1926 General and Class Welfare Request will be published?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): It is hoped that the decisions may be published next month.

FRENCH SQUADRON (VISIT TO PORTSMOUTH).

Lord APSLEY: 40.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the arrangements made in connection with the French Fleet's visit to Ports mouth at the end of May?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A French squadron, consisting of three cruisers, three flotilla leaders and three destroyers, under the command of Rear-Admiral Pirot, will be visiting Portsmouth from Monday, 30th May, to Saturday morning, 4th June, 1927. During their stay in this country, the officers and men of the French squadron will be entertained at Portsmouth, and a programme of entertainment in London is also being prepared.

DOCKYARD MEN (TRANSFER).

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many hired men transferred from Rosyth and Pembroke have been discharged, or are under notice of discharge, from Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham and Sheerness dockyards; and if any transferred established men are included in the numbers to be discharged from these dockyards?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The numbers of such hired men discharged or under notice are Devonport 1, Portsmouth 8, Chatham 11, Sheerness none; the numbers of transferred established men discharged or proposed to be discharged are Devonport 6, Portsmouth 5, Chatham 15, Sheerness 2.

SINGAPORE BASE

Mr. KELLY: 42.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of workpeople engaged on the construction of the naval base at Singapore, and from where such labour has been recruited?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Irrespective of 13 men of superior grades sent from England, there are 743 workmen now engaged by the Department on the construction of the base, and all these men have been obtained locally.

ADMIRALTY INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.

Mr. KELLY: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of workpeople who were employed in Admiralty industrial establishments at the end of February, 1925, 1926, and 1927?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The numbers at the respective dates were 70,952; 66,624; and 63,524.

Mr. KELLY: Does that include establishments at home and abroad?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The numbers employed exclude those employed at Singapore and those employed in hospitals, colleges, etc.

YARDCRAFT SERVICE.

Mr. KELLY: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of officers and men engaged in
the yardcraft service at home and abroad at the end of February, 1925, 1926, and 1927, weekly; and the average number of hours worked at these periods?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The numbers employed in the yardcraft service attached to the home dockyards ana establishments at the respective dates given in the question were 2,048, 1920 and 1819; the conditions of yardcraft service are such that it is impracticable to give. an answer to the last part of the question.

Mr. KELLY: Is any consideration being given to the question of having a fixed normal working week for these people engaged in the yardcraft service?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The conditions of the yardcraft service are such that it is impossible to have the hours observed on land.

WOMEN FRANCHISE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the intentions of the Government with regard to the enfranchisement of women?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member. to what I said on this subject in reply to the right hon. Member for the Flatting Division of Manchester arising out of the statement on business on the 31st March.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what day he will be in a position to answer this question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the statement which I have made about a dozen times, but I will make a statement before we adjourn for the Easter Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRAINING.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 47.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied with the results of the experimental work in the training of the unemployed for other occupations; and whether he proposes to
extend and develop this system of training as indicated by the Blanesburgh Committee?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to extend the training of the unemployed for other occupations, as recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am entirely satisfied with the results so far achieved. I am unable to make any statement with regard to the extension of this system of training.

EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEES.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 48 and 49.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he has considered the desirability of setting up employment committees in each industry representative of the whole industry, supported by employers and trade unions, and in close touch with the employment exchange system and with the local authorities, as suggested by the Blanesburgh Commitete; and whether he proposes to take action along these lines;
(2) whether the Ministry is proposing to hold an inquiry into the arrangements for the recruitment and discharge of labour in industry with a view to finding measures that will prevent the introduc-

TABLE showing for various dates the estimated number of persons in Great Britain insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts (including persons insured under Special Schemes) the numbers whose unemployment books were lodged and the differences between these two figures.


Date.
Estimated numbers insured.
Numbers whose unemployment books were lodged.
Excess of (2) over (3).||


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)


July, 1921
…
…
…
11,080,950
2,429,236†
8,651,714¶


July 1922
…
…
…
11,180,950
1,504,094
9,676,856


July 1923
…
…
…
11,231,980
1,255,682
9,976,298


July 1924
…
…
…
11,373,510
1,044,540
10,328,970


July 1925
…
…
…
11,623,220
1,341,079‡
10,282,141


July 1926
…
…
…
11,773,700
1,683,195§
10,090,505¶


21st March, 1927
…
…
11,848,700*
1,146,755
10,701,945*


* Provisional estimate only.


† Affected by trade disputes in the coal mining and cotton industries.


‡ Affected by crisis in the coal mining industry.


§ Affected by dispute in the coal mining industry.


|| The figures in this column include persons involved in trade disputes and also non-employment due to sickness and customary holidays for which unemployment benefit was not payable.


¶ Including over one million miners involved in a trade dispute.

tion of redundant labour into particular occupations, secure an adequate supply of effective labour in all industries, ensure greater stability of employment, and generally improve the conditions and control of the supply of labour, as urged by the Blanesburgh Committee?

Mr. T. THOMSON: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to set up employment committees in each industry representative of the whole industry, including employers, trade unions, Employment Exchange committees, and local authorities, as recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Careful consideration is being given to the recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee to which reference is made, but I cannot at present say what action it will be practicable to take.

INSURED PERSONS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons in employment at the beginning of July of each year since 1921, inclusive, and the estimated number at work on 28th March, 1927?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

PERSONS OVER SEVENTY.

Mr. W. BAKER: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men and women who are still at work after the age of 70 years are called upon to pay contributions towards the unemployment insurance funds, although benefit is in all circumstances refused to persons above that age; and whether he will take steps to amend the regulations or the law?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. Persons over the age of 70 are entitled to draw unemployment benefit on the same conditions as anybody else, except only that such persons if in receipt of old age pensions are disqualified for benefit and are also excepted from payment of contributions?

Mr. BAKER: Is it not a common occcurrence that benefit has been refused in these cases on the ground that a person is of such an age that further occupation is unlikely?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That may be the case, but it does not affect the point raised in the question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that persons over 70 are instructed by his Department to claim the old age pension, and in effect each person insured under this Act is automatically disqualified because he must draw the old age pension when he reaches 70 years of age?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that they are independently instructed in that sense, but perhaps the hon. Member will give me particulars.

BOYS AND GIRLS (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. GIBBINS: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls registered at the Liverpool Employment Exchanges and the number receiving benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 28th March, 1927, there were on the registers of Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in the Liverpool area, 1,307 boys and 1,694 girls. Of these 437 boys and 221 girls had claims to unemployment benefit current at that date, but I am unable to say how many were in receipt of benefit.

IRON, STEEL AND ENGINEERING TRADES.

Mr. WHITELEY: 59.
asked the Minis ter of Labour the number of unemployed in the iron and steel and engineering industries on 31st March, 1927?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The latest available figures are those for 21st February, published in the "Labour Gazette" for March, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. Figures for 21st March will be published in the April Gazette, to be issued on 20th April.

BRITISH SEAMEN.

Mr. GIBBINS: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of British seamen unemployed, and how many are receiving unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 21st February, 1927, the number of seamen of all nationalities on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 14,749. I am unable to say how many were in receipt of unemployment benefit. Separate figures for seamen of British nationality are not available.

BENEFIT.

Mr. GIBBINS: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has issued instructions to the Employment Exchange officials giving them authority to offer unemployment benefit on condition that it is a loan to be repaid?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. Any such procedure would be contrary to the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that when L. H. Parks, 113, Bodmin Street, Attercliffe, Sheffield, appeared before the court of referees the chairman stated that the wife's business was bona fide here; and why. under these circumstances, benefit has been refused?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The court recommended in this case that benefit should be disallowed on the ground that the claimant was employed in a business belonging to his wife.

Mr. WILSON: 66.
also asked the Minister of Labour whether he can explain why, when an unemployed man assists in his wife's business, benefit is refused,
while another unemployed man may assist in the same business and continue to receive benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The decision would depend on the actual circumstances in each case. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of actual eases, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that extended benefit is not payable, as a rule, to single persons who are residing with relatives to whom they can reasonably look for support, any inquiry is made in such cases to find out whether such relatives are in a position to provide support; and whether applicants, whose relatives are not able to render support owing to sickness or other cause, are enabled to appeal against such decision?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, applicants have no statutory right of appeal against decisions on extended benefit questions, but, in practice, arrangements are usually made for applicants to have their cases reconsidered if there is room for doubt and they are dissatisfied with the first decision.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these people are expected to sponge on their relatives?

Mr. PALING: Is there any legal compulsion upon those relatives to disclose what their income is?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. BUCHANAN: With reference to the statement in the right hon. Gentleman's answer that in practice a decision may be reviewed, may I ask what is the authority that in practice decides that a case may be re-heard? Is it the managers of the local exchange, the divisional officer, or who, in practice, is the officer who decides that it should be reheard?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In practice such cases, in the first instance, would most likely be brought before the officer in charge of the local exchange, and he would make arrangements, in
most cases, though practice differs in different committees, to have the case re-heard by a sub-committee of the local employment committee. If the case presents more difficulty, and is not an easy one to decide, he would refer it to the divisional officer for an opinion. It is all a question of the difficulty of the case.

Mr. YOUNG: If there is no appeal, how can the applicant make a statement regarding the reconsideration of his case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It would be reconsidered by the original rota committee.

Mr. PALING: Is there any legal compulsion on the relatives to disclose their income; and, in case they resent this inquisition and refuse the information, what happens to the applicant?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: These are all hypothetical questions. If the hon. Member will give me a concrete case in which any difficulty arises, I will consider it.

TRAINEES, CLAYDON AND BRANDON.

Mr. C. WILSON: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour, in regard to the 104 men at Claydon and the 40 men at Brandon, respectively, whose instructional course was terminated summarily, the number who were unsuitable; the number whose conduct was unsatisfactory; the number who suffered from ill-health; and the number who left for other causes?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The information desired by the hon. Member is as follows:

Training terminated on account of:


Unsuitability:






Claydon
…
…
…
11


Brandon
…
…
…
4


Unsatisfactory oonduct:






Claydon
…
…
…
57


Brandon
…
…
…
12


Ill-health:






Claydon
…
…
…
27


Brandon
…
…
…
23


Other causes:






Claydon
…
…
…
9


Brandon
…
…
…
1

LACE INDUSTRY.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are now employed in the lace industry or the number employed at the latest convenient date, and the corresponding figures for 1926 and 1925, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics of the number of insured persons in each industry are compiled in relation to July of each year. At July, 1926, the estimated number of insured persons in the lace industry in Great Britain was 19,000 as compared with 19,500 at July, 1925. Of these numbers 4,035 were recorded as unemployed at 26th July, 1926, and 3,812 at 27th July, 1925. At 21st February, 1927, the number recorded as unemployed was 2,389, of whom 999 were wholly unemployed, and 1,390 temporarily stopped from the service of their employers. Statistics relating to insured persons do not include outworkers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the numbers employed in February, 1927?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, it is only possible to do that once a year when the books are returned to the Exchanges; it is not possible on other occasions.

Mr. KELLY: Are those engaged in the plain net trade included under the term "lace"?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will put that question down I will try to obtain the information.

TRADE BOARDS ACTS.

Mr. MACKINDER: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is at present conducting any inquiries with a view to the extension of the Trade Boards Acts to further trades?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am at all times ready to make inquiries as to the need for the extension of the Trade Boards Acts to further trades on production of prima-facie evidence that sweating conditions prevail in such trades. No such evidence is before me with regard to any trade at the present time.

Mr. MACKINDER: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour how many male and
female workers respectively, classified according to age groups, are now included within the operation or the Trade Boards Acts?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is estimated on the basis of the information obtained at the population Census of 1921 that approximately 350,000 males and 920,000 female workers are employed in Great Britain in trades for which there are Trade Boards in operation. Statistics showing the distribution of these workers among various age groups are not available?

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION (BELGIUM).

Major GLYN: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has any information showing what are the trades and industries exempted from the provisions of the Washington Convention Eight Hours Act passed by the Belgian Parliament?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: According to my information, the Belgian Eight Hour Day Act of 14th June, 1921, applies to commercial establishments and to industry generally, with the exception of agriculture, transport by sea and inland waterway and so-called family undertakings. Persons excepted from the application of the Act are persons occupying a position of management or trust, commercial travellers and homeworkers.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the terms of the Washington Agreement are not properly carried out by the Belgian Government and the Belgian industry?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If my Noble Friend will put that question down I shall be glad to consider it. I have no instance in mind at the present moment, but it does not arise immediately out of this question. The point is one on which I could not give an. opinion off-hand.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The right hon. Gentleman has no reason to suppose that those terms are not carried out.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain Belgian cotton mills the workers are working 16
hours a day in two shifts of eight hours and is that allowed under the Washington Convention?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which should be put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

FLYING ACCIDENTS.

Colonel DAY: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he has received a Report of the coroner's statement at the inquest held at Hawkinge aerodrome on Pilot-officer Frederick Priestman and Leading-aircraftsman John W. Pickering, who were killed in an air crash at Elham; and whether, in view of these remarks, instructions will be issued that unimportant flights should be discontinued in the future when indications have been received that the destinations were not desirable places' to go to on account of fog?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have seen the Press reports of the coroner's inquest, but the Reports of the official Court of Inquiry and of the Inspector of Accidents have not yet been received. I can make no statement in regard to the orders, if any, which it will be necessary to issue when the Report has been received and considered.

Colonel DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it necessary to allow these men to take unnecessary risks in weather of this kind?

Sir S. HOARE: I certainly do not wish anyone to take unnecessary risks, but I cannot express an opinion on this case until I have had the Report.

Mr. HARDIE: Must any airman go up if he is ordered to do so by his superior officer?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, certainly, if it be a proper order.

Colonel DAY: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what percentage of accidents in the Royal Air Force since the war have been due to wing flutter or tail flutter in the aeroplanes involved; what types of post-war aircraft have possessed either of these defects; if it has been
found necessary to restrict the manœuvres of any types of post-war machines; and whether such types were retained in use in the Royal Air Force although they were known to be prone to wing flutter or tail flutter?

Sir S. HOARE: I am not prepared to give the information for which the hon. Member asks. The whole question of accidents in the Royal Air Force was dealt very fully by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 10th March, and he has since deprecated inquiries on points of detail of this character.

Colonel DAY: Is it the fact that certain instructions have been issued that machines should not be flown at over 60 miles an hour, and are those instructions on account of the wing flutter?

Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid the hon. Member is asking for just the information I cannot give him.

OBSERVATION BALLOONS.

Viscount SANDON: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if any observation balloons are at present in commission; if so, how many; and, if not, how personnel are kept in training in this branch?

Sir S. HOARE.: Two balloons are at present kept in commission for training purposes. As I informed my Noble Friend on the 30th March, it would be undesirable to give details as to the scale on which we are prepared to mobilise this branch of the Service in the event of war.

CIVILIAN ASSISTANTS.

Mr. E. BROWN: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what are the duties of the new post of civilian adjutant and/or barrack warden; and how many of these appointments have been made?

Sir S. HOARE: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the separate posts of civilian assistants in adjutants' offices and of station wardens. Eight appointments have been made to the former posts, and thirty-one to the latter; all of these are ex-service men. The civilian assistants have been appointed to take over those duties formerly carried out by assistant
adjutants which can be performed by civilians, and to give adjutants all possible help in their office and clerical work generally. The duties of the station wardens comprise the custody, receipt and issue of barrack stores, the recording of the consumption of electric current, gas and water, and other similar barrack duties.

AIRSHIP PROGRAMME.

Mr. HARDIE: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the amount expended on the airship programme since its inception up to the latest convenient date, and the proportion of this amount expended upon experiments and research?

Sir S. HOARE: The total expenditure on the present airship programme since its inception in June, 1924, to March, 1927, is approximately £980,000: the proportion expended on experiments and research is 27 per cent.

RENT (AIR FORCE CINEMAS AND THEATRES).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the amount of arrears of rent due for cinemas and theatres by the Royal Air Force; and what steps are being taken to settle this matter?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is nil and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

AVIATION GROUNDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many municipalities have provided, or made arrangements for, landing-fields in the areas for which they are responsible; and whether he has impressed on the municipalities and local government authorities the necessity of ear-marking certain suitable land for aviation grounds in view of probable future developments in civil and military aviation?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, so far as I am aware no municipalities have as yet made provision for landing grounds; as regards the second part, the attention of local authorities has been drawn to the desirability of making such provision, particularly in connection with town planning schemes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Baronet press this matter on the municipalities, and point out to them that they should get the land now, so that its price will not be enhanced when aviation has developed further?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes. Sir, I have drawn the attention of the municipalities to the need for that, and no doubt the hon. and gallant Member's question will also draw their attention to it.

CAIRO-KARACHI AIR SERVICE (BASRA-KARACHI SECTION).

Mr. LUMLEY: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the cause of the delay in the opening of the Basra-Karachi section of the Cairo-Karachi air service?

Sir S. HOARE: The delay is due to the necessity for negotiations with the Persian Government referred to in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) on the 30th March.

Sir F. WISE: Does this section receive the subsidy?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, certainly. I have already issued a White Paper in which the conditions are set out.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: How many aerodromes is it proposed to have on this section?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY FACILITIES, EAST LONDON.

Mr. LANSBURY: 85.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has taken any steps to inquire into the reasons why the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company has reduced the weekday train services and ceased the running of Sunday trains on that section of their railways which runs from Poplar to Broad Street; is be aware that inconvenience is experienced by the people of Hackney, Homerton, Bow, Bromley and Poplar owing to this withdrawal of railway facilities; and will he, in view of the resulting congestion on the roads refer the matter to the London Traffic Advisory Board?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The London, Mid-land and Scottish Railway Company have informed me that the whole question of the train services on their North London section has recently received careful consideration, and that they propose to run during this summer the same service on Sundays as they ran in the summer of 1925. So far as the weekday service is concerned, however, the company consider that this is at least adequate to public requirements.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself cause an inquiry to he made into the running of this railway and the very great inconvenience experienced by people living along the route, who have not been able to use it, and is he aware that the railway has a very paying traffic so far as goods and minerals are concerned, and altogether neglect passengers?

Colonel ASHLEY: On the last point, I think the railway more or less boxes the compass and passengers prefer to use the road, which is quicker. As to the first point, I am already informed as to the services through the London Traffic Advisory Committee, who heard evidence when they investigated the conditions of travelling in East London.

Miss LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the lightening of the traffic on the Aldgate and East Ham line, which might be secured by the improvement of this alternative means of transit?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think I can really press the company any more. They have given very careful consideration to the matter.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rolling stock on this line is exactly the same as was used 50 years ago, and it is the only railway in the country which has such rolling stock?

Major GLYN: May I state that the rolling stock is being entirely renewed.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order.

Major CRAWFURD: May I ask, if the question is in order, as to which I am not quite sure, whether the right hon. Gentleman himself has power to inquire into
complaints made against railway companies, or has he to get the information at second hand from the companies?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have power only to inquire in the case of safety.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is unsafe to travel on this line.

BELGIAN GRANITE.

Mr. EVERARD: 86.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a certain urban district council purchased 400 tons of Belgian granite chippings for use on their roads at a higher price than the quotation for British material; and whether in future he will give larger percentage grants from the Road Fund to those local authorities who use only British materials for the upkeep of their roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I regret that the particulars given are too meagre to enable me to identify the particular purchase. It is my wish to encourage the use of British materials, but the course suggested by my hon. Friend is not, in my judgment, practicable. I would also point out that only a portion of the work executed by highway authorities is eligible for grants from the Road Fund.

Mr. EVERARD: In cases where it can be definitely shown that British duties are lower than foreign, surely the right hon. Gentleman can bring some pressure to bear on local authorities.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will investigate the cases.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that there are in the Highlands, and especially in Argyllshire, quarries from which illimitable seaborne supplies, the cheapest of all, can be got, and will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions that no grant shall be given unless homegrown material is used?

RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS (BUILDING PLANS).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received resolutions from rural district councils requesting that power be given to them and other local authorities to refer back or to reject plans of buildings presented to them for
their approval which threaten the beauty of the countryside; whether the matter has received consideration; and what answer has been sent to the petitioning authorities?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Controller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Resolutions from a number of rural district councils have been received. It is possible at present for local authorities to obtain certain powers under Town Planning Schemes for preventing the erection of disfiguring buildings. Legislation would be required for any wider action, and my right hon. Friend cannot promise to undertake this at the present time.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not the hon. Baronet agree that, if leglisation be not soon forthcoming, the countryside will be ruined?

STATE INSURANCE.

Mr. LANSBURY: 88.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the year ended 31st March, 1926, shows there is a balance of £18,002,001 13s. 2d. standing to the credit of the British account, representing Great Britain's share of the profits in connection with the war risks insurance schemes undertaken by the Government subject to adjustments in respect of outstanding matters, he will consider the advisability of instituting an inquiry as to the feasibility of setting up a Government all-in insurance scheme for life, fire, accident, workmen's compensation, marine and all other classes of insurance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The war risks insurance schemes were exceptional and cannot be compared with ordinary insurance transactions. A Departmental Committee appointed by the Home Secretary-reported in 1919 adversely to the establishment of a State system of insurance against workmen's compensation risks, and I do not propose to institute a further inquiry as to the feasibility of establishing a Government scheme for the insurance of those or other risks.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will not the hon. Gentleman recommend to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that he cannot balance his Budget, to consider this Socialist proposal for getting money?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not think the hon. Member would relieve the Chancellor of the Exchequer as much as he thinks. This was quite an abnormal insurance business; it was conducted for war purposes through existing insurance companies; there were not the establishment charges which there would be in conducting an ordinary company, and the £18,000,000 of which the hon. Member speaks is misleading him.

FISHER GIRLS (TRAVELLING).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 90.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if there are any special rules regarding the provision of proper accommodation for fisher girls travelling by ship to fishing centres during the season?

Sir B. CHADWICK: There are no special rules applying to the accommodation of fisher girls, but every vessel carrying the girls is required to hold a passenger certificate, which has to be renewed every year, and to comply with all the Regulations applicable to such certificates. When this question was the subject of a special inquiry by Board of Trade officers and a lady inspector of the Home Office in 1924, the Board of Trade were satisfied that the owners were doing all they could to meet the needs of this traffic, in addition to complying with the official Regulations.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that conditions are not at all satisfactory at present;, and will he be prepared to make further inquiry?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I know the hon. Gentleman feels strongly on this subject and, although we have examined it as recently as 1924, if he will send me any information he has I will have it looked into again.

Mr. BARR: Will the Minister again submit to these shipping and railway companies a proposal to send the girls in relays so that there will not be overcrowding at any particular time and at any particular place? That, I think, was considered before.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: When the hon. Gentleman is making a further inspection will he secure that lady or other inspectors travel on the boat with the girls in a stormy sea? They will see whether it is satisfactory or not.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have promised the hon. Member a. further inquiry into the matter. No doubt the points brought up by hon. Members will be dealt with at the inquiry and given consideration. I think the hon. Member behind me (Mr. Macquisten) is wrong in suggesting that inspectors do not travel. I believe they do.

Colonel DAY: May I suggest that some hon. Members should travel on the boats to see what they are like?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I say that I am speaking from personal experience?

MERCANTILE MARINE (HOURS OF LABOUR).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 91.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government has approached or been approached by the Governments of any foreign States possessing important mercantile marines with a view to investigating the possibility of joint action in restricting the hours of labour on board ship; and, if not, is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to take any action towards securing such joint action?

Sir B. CHADWICK: A foreign Government expressed the opinion last year that the question of the international regulation of hours of labour at sea might usefully be discussed by an International Labour Conference, and the matter was discussed by the governing body of the International Labour Office recently. His Majesty's Government are of opinion that such part of this question as requires to be dealt with should be settled nationally by agreement between employers and employed, before embarking on an international discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

EXPORTS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 92.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the amount of
coal exported in the months of January and February, 1926, with the estimated value for these respective months, with similar figures for 1927?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The quantity of coal exported during January, 1926, was 4,148,042 tons, and the total declared value, f.o.b., was £3,821.336. The corresponding figures for February, 1926, were 4,340,006 tons and £4,025,627; for January, 1927, 4,092,879 tons and £4,290,806; and for February, 1927, 4,172,856 tons and £3,982,682.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the whole of the information contained in the reply is published in the Trade and Navigation Returns, and when hon. Members bring such questions to the Table is it in order to ask them whether or not the information has been published?

Mr. THURTLE: I take it there is no vacancy at the Table for an additional clerk.

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Questions I have handed in myself requesting information, which has already been published in the document referred to, have been refused. I am raising the question to ask why such questions are permitted under the circumstances.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member rightly suggests what is the general rule, but it is not always possible for the clerk to know every document that has been published.

EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 93.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of men and boys employed below and above ground, respectively, in the months of January and February, 1926, and similar figures for 1927?

Colonel LANE FOX: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available.

Following is the information:

Total number of wage earners employed at end of




1926.
1927.


January
…
1,099,700
996,100


February
…
1,107,500
1,012,700

The weekly returns from which these figures are obtained do not distinguish the age or place of working of the persons employed. The only information which does so is that obtained from the Annual Returns, and for the last two years the proportions were as follow:



December,



1925.
1926.



Per cent.
Per cent.


Above Ground




Men
17.1
17.9


Boys (under 16 years of age)
1.4
1.2


Women and Girls
0.4
0.4


Below Ground




Men
77.8
77.9


Boys (under 16 years of age)
3.3
2.6

PRICES.

Mr. BATEY: 95.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can give the latest figures of the pit-head prices of coal in each coalmining district; and the retail price of coal sold in London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, and Sheffield?

Colonel LANE FOX: As the reply to this question involves a statistical statement, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LAWSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the reported reduction of 5s. a ton by firms outside the ring, in London? If not, is he taking steps to investigate this matter, and to see how such a thing can be done?

Colonel LANE FOX: I do not think that arises out of this question.

Following are the statistics promised;

Particulars of pithead prices for the first quarter of this year are not at present in the possession of my Department, but as soon as they are available, which depends to some extent on the ascertainment arrangements in the various districts, they will be published in the usual way.

The Coal Merchants' Federation have supplied my Department with the following particulars in regard to present
retail prices in London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield:


London.





Per ton





s.
d.


Description of coal. Best Silkstone
…
…
51
0


Best Derby Brights
…
…
51
0


Best Bright House
…
…
50
0


Best Kitchen
…
…
48
0


Best Nuts
…
…
48
0


Best Cobbles
…
…
47
0


Hard Cobbles
…
…
44
6


Kitchen Nuts
…
…
43
6


Stove
…
…
39
0


Anthracite Nuts
…
…
85
0

Glasgow.


Best Parlour
…
…
…
37
6


Good House
…
…
…
36
0


Kitchen Coal
…
…
…
33
0

Birmingham.


Best Coal
…
…
…
49
0


Medium quality
…
…
…
43
6


Kitchen Coal
…
…
…
38
0

Manchester.






Per cwt.






s.
d.


Selected Coal
…
…
…
2
3


Best Coal
…
…
…
2
1


Kitchen Coal
…
…
…
1
10

An extra charge of 2s. 6d. per ton is made for delivery in bags.

Sheffield.



Per cwt.



s.
d.
s.
d.


House Coal in bags (according to quality)
1
5 to 1
9

MARINE CABLES, ORKNEY AND SHETLAND.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 98.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of occasions on which marine cables connecting with islands in Orkney and Shetland were interrupted during the years 1923 to 1926, inclusive, and the average length of time that elapsed from the interruption to the resumption of service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are in all 25 cables serving the Orkneys and Shetlands, including the inter-island cables. During the years 1923–1926 there were in all 34 interruptions and the average time which elapsed between the breakage and the repair of the cables
was 119 days. As there are in. some cases alternative routes to an island, an interruption does not necessarily entail a severance of telegraphic communication.

WAR DEPARTMENT HOME FLEET.

Mr. COMPTON: 99.
asked the Secretary of State for War the names and tonnage of the vessels in the War Department Home Fleet, winch of these are employed at stations abroad, and the total personnel?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the information asked for in the first part of the question involves giving the names and tonnage of some 80 vessels, I will have the list prepared and send it to the hon. Member direct. The total personnel of the War Department Fleet is, approximately, 375.

Mr. MAXTON: Will it be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was not going to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It will be a very long document, but if the House wishes it, of course, I can circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

CENTRAL ARGENTINE RAILWAY COMPANY (BRITSH LOAN).

Sir F. WISE: 104.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the $15,000,000 borrowed from the Central Argentine Railway Company have been repaid?

Mr. R. McNEILL: Yes, Sir, in February.

Sir F. WISE: Are these Argentine dollars or American dollars?

Mr. McNEILL: American dollars, I think.

GOVERNMENT LOANS (MATURITIES).

Sir F. WISE: 105.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the months in 1927–28 that the maturities of £300,814,000 fall due and the months in 1928–29 that the £470,931,000 fall due?

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend will find the exact dates of the maturities of
Government loans in the next three years in the reply to his question of the 1st March, 1926.

SMALL-POX, DUNDEE.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give the House any further information regarding the outbreak of small-pox in Dundee; and whether he is aware that on the steamer "Macharda," just arrived at the mouth of the Tay with a cargo of jute from Calcutta, there are three small-pox cases; and what steps he proposes to take to assist the local health authority in protecting the citizens from this additional possible source of infection?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Up to this morning the number of cases of small-pox diagnosed in Dundee was 66, excluding the three cases on the steamer "Macharda." Of these 66 cases 60 have been removed to hospital. The remaining six were not discovered till after recovery when they were removed to a reception house for observation. Sufficient lymph has been issued for 30,000 vaccinations. A total of 8,500 school children had been vaccinated up to yesterday. The medical officer of health of Dundee received a wireless message and notified my Department of the three cases on the steamer "Macharda" before the vessel arrived in port. The duty of dealing with the present situation in Dundee rests primarily on the local authority, but the medical officers of the Scottish Board of Health are in close co-operation with the Public Health Department of the city and are rendering every assistance in their power. The three cases on the "Macharda" provisionally diagnosed as small-pox were removed to hospital immediately on arrival on the afternoon of the 4th instant and are very mild in type. All the crew have since been vaccinated and their quarters on board disinfected. No native member of the crew is allowed to leave the vessel but the European members are permitted to land on informing the medical officer of health or his representative where they are going. No one except those engaged in unloading is allowed to go on board and the stevedores were offered vaccination before the
work of unloading commenced. I understand that the "Macharda" is leaving Dundee to-night.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether this cargo of jute has been disinfected in any way, if it is to be allowed to be sent to the mills and if the workers are to be permitted to operate upon the cargo of jute?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The cargo of jute has never been handled or touched by any member of the crew, and is being unloaded and placed in sheds.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are you going to allow it to be used in public works?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the medical officer is satisfied there is no risk of cargo infection. It is not yet clear that those members of the crew who were diagnosed as having smallpox have actually got smallpox. There has been no contact between the members of the crew and the cargo.

Sir BASIL PETO: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's first reply, has he any record of the number of cases among the 66 suffering from smallpox who have undergone recent vaccination?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think none of them, but I would not like to say offhand.

Sir B. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?

Mr. JOHNSTON: In the right hon. Gentleman's first answer did he not say that these three cases had been diagnosed as smallpox cases, and did he not say in his supplementary answer that he was not sure that they were smallpox cases? If they were smallpox cases, what guarantee has he that the raw jute has not been in contact with these people?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Because the ship was loaded by other people when she was being loaded at Calcutta, and the crew have never touched this cargo during the passage. All I can say is, that the wireless message which was sent to Dundee said that they diagnosed these cases as smallpox. On arrival every precaution was taken and the cases were removed to hospital; but it is very doubtful whether they are cases of smallpox; if they are, they are very mild cases.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this affair has caused a great deal of feeling in Dundee, will the right hon. Gentleman, if for no other reason than to restore confidence amongst the population, take steps to see that something is done with this jute, in view of the fact that the population, rightly or wrongly, have a grave feeling that they may come into contact with it and spread the disease?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I can only express the view, of the responsible health officers who are dealing with this matter on the spot, and they assure me that there is no risk in connection with this cargo

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

Mr. G. H. HIRST: I beg to give notice that, on this day three weeks, I will call attention to Accidents in Mines, and move a Resolution.

CO-OPERATVE SOCIETIES.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I beg to give notice that, on this day three weeks, I will call attention to the position of Cooperative Societies in relation to political parties, and move a Resolution.

ECONOMY.

Major HILLS: I beg to give notice that, on this day three weeks, I will call attention to the necessity for Economy, and move a Resolution.

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the employment of ex-service men disabled by wounds in the service of their King and country compulsory.
In asking leave to introduce this Bill I realise the difficulty of compressing into the limited time allotted sufficient matter calculated to help the House to form a judgment. The Bill is to make compulsory the employment of a small quota of disabled ex-service men by public bodies, manufacturers and others, who employ over 10 men. At best, it can only be a temporary Measure, because as time
goes on the number will be gradually diminishing. The effect of the Bill will not be the discharge of men now employed to make room for the disabled; it only ensures that, as vacancies occur, disabled men up to the quota shall be employed. The good work of the King's Roll Council, under the Chairmanship of the hon and gallant Member for Farcham (Sir J. Davidson), is appreciated by all ex-service men, and by the British Legion, and while every credit should be given to the energy and devotion displayed by the King's Roll Council it has to be admitted that they have been unable, so far, to rope in those unpatriotic firms who place purely business considerations before the true sense of patriotism.
This Bill is the one which was introduced in the House by our late colleague who was the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Pielou), himself a disabled ex-service man, which was given a Second Beading without a Division in May, 1924, and while I realise that in framing our laws one cannot count too much on sentiment it should not be forgotten that the object of the Bill is to help the class of men of which our late colleague was such a fine example, and also that he contracted the illness while serving these ex-service men, which was the immediate cause of the early death. Many local authorities are not playing the game with regard to employing a small quota of disabled men, and even some Government Departments are not setting a good example. I have here the latest figures which can be obtained with regard to local authorities and the King's Roll. There are 3,808 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, and of this number as many as 2,297 are not on the King's Roll.
The present voluntary system acts unfairly on the firms who now live up to the letter and spirit of this Bill, as they are placed at a disadvantage with their competitors who evade their duty. Most of the countries who were involved in the Great War have adopted compulsory methods, having found that the voluntary system was ineffective. Italy, for instance, eight months after a compulsory service had been in operation, reduced the number of unemployed from a quarter of a million to 500. It is estimated that if this Bill becomes operative
it would not be necessary for any firm to employ more than 4 per cent. of the total number employed to absorb all the disabled unemployed. It is realised in the Bill that all industries cannot absorb the same quota, neither is it expected that firms who employ less than 10 men will come under its provisions.
Field-Marshal Earl Haig has been, and is, persistent in advocating the cause of the disabled men. Although they may be in receipt of a disability pension, and although the country responds so well to the appeal on each Poppy Day, we all know what a tremendous difference it makes to a man's life if he is occupied. There is nothing like work to bring happiness. Time hangs heavily on those who have nothing to do. Safeguards are included in the Bill to satisfy all reasonable demands that the men are suitable for the particular work, and I am confident that they would readily adapt themselves to circumstances, and, if given the opportunity, would show their appreciation that the country had not forgotten them by doing their best to give satisfaction. No patriotic employer has anything to fear in the Bill. He has everything to gain, for if, instead of the patriotic employer shouldering too large a quota of the disabled ex-service men, they were equally distributed over the. whole of industry it is obvious that the good employer would gain and not lose thereby. I am pleased to be able to say that hon. Members of all parties in the House have agreed to back the Bill, and I trust the House will allow me to bring in this Measure, and thus show that we, at any rate, arc prepared to redeem the pledges made when these men left all to fight for the country in its hour of need.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Smedley Crooke, Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, Mr. Ernest Brown, Major Cohen, Mr. Dixey, Colonel England, Mr. Womersley, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Lieut.-Colonel Gadie.

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN BILL,

"to make the employment of ex-service men disabled by wounds in the service of their King and Country compulsory," presented accordingly, and read the First
time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).

Mr. HOPKINS reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Friday, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Royal and Parliamentary Titles Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Bognor Gaslight and Coke Company; to change the name of the company; and for other purposes."[Bognor Gas and Electricity Bill Lords.]

BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILLS REPORTED.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Westgate and Birchington Water Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Tyne Improvement Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Great Indian Peninsula Railway Annuities Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill,

Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHINA.

BRITISH POLICY.

SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN'S STATEMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: The House has now reached the time when it is about to adjourn for Easter, and I think it is felt on all hands that before that adjournment takes place some opportunity, not necessarily a prolonged opportunity, should be taken of surveying the situation in China as we have had it outlined, and that I propose to do as briefly as possible. The situation is developing day by day. There is civil war and a revolution in progress in China. Nobody can say what is going to happen. If we wait for an established authority, we shall probably have to wait a very considerable time, and, when we get it, probably it will be too late for us to make use of the opportunities that may have presented themselves to us. Moreover, the situation changes for ourselves, because the House will remember that when we discussed China before, the great question was Shanghai and the protection of life. At that time, negotiations were still on foot, and, so far as the Chinese were concerned, they were being conducted under protest, occasioned by the despatch of the Shanghai Defence Force.
There is no doubt, whatever the effect of the despatch of that force may have been on Shanghai and upon the minds of the people in Shanghai, it has considerably increased our negotiating difficulties. It has not increased the security of British life outside Shanghai. It undoubtedly spread suspicion all over China as to what really was the intention of the Government. I think that suspicion was baseless, but, after all, we have to work in a world with man as God made him, and not as we would have him made, and everybody who understands the Chinese situation, and everybody who understands the present mentality of the East, knows that the biggest obstacle which not only we, but every Western nation, has to remove is the obstacle of an inherited and traditional suspicion. For instance, when the right hon. Gentleman
issued that Christmas statement and then some weeks afterwards those troops were despatched, the effect of their despatch upon the Chinese mind undoubtedly as an objective fact was to make those who were most in favour of us and those who were most friendly towards us, and most desired a complete settlement, say, "Well, now, do we quite know what the British Government are driving at?"[Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh, but I am presenting a case for which I have a great deal of ground in the Press and elsewhere, as anyone who can read between the lines and who has read the reports of trained observers like Mr. Ransome, observers and inquirers who have had experience practically all over the world must realise, and I certainly believe what I am saying to be true, and I think it far better to have it discussed, in view of the situation which is steadily developing and constantly changing.
The first point that I want to make—and surely there will be no resistance to it—is that it is not merely a problem of Shanghai; it is a problem of China. Supposing, for instance, you were to turn Shanghai, or any other town, or any other settlement, A, B, C, or D, where either British people gathered together before the trouble arose or were congregated as a result of the trouble having arisen, into the most perfect military defence that the mind of man can devise—stock it with troops, hold back mobs retreat and advance soldiers and make it absolutely danger proof—and then, what have you done? You have defended the people who were there it is quite true, but nobody knows better than the Foreign Secretary that that is not the sum and substance of the problem that worries him and gives him care and that is going to continue to worry him and give him care. Therefore, my first proposition is that the test of our policy must be the whole of China and the whole of the Chinese problem as presented to us at the present time. It was perfectly evident the other day when the Nanking incidents started that the protection which was supposed to have been made perfect had not been made perfect. At Nanking we have had certain very deplorable incidents, incidents that cannot be left where they are—certainly, incidents that cannot be left where they are.
We have had the reports of our officials in whom we have the greatest confidence—certainly, in whom we have the greatest confidence—and we have had reports from other sources. We have had reports from Mr. Chen, and, according to my recollection—the Foreign Secretary will contradict me if I am wrong—whatever Mr. Chen has reported to us as having happened has at any rate been so truthful that it was worthy of consideration and further inquiry. I see the Foreign Secretary has a note of exclamation on his face.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must beg him not to challenge me to correct statements of that kind.

Mr. MacDONALD: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I will make my own statement without reference to the right hon. Gentleman. The point, surely, is that we must be so reasonable in our position that we do not lay ourselves open to suspicion of an unreasonable character. Mr. Chen has made a statement about what happened at Nanking. Other statements have been made about what happened at Nanking. We have had stories and we have had rival stories. We have had stories that are evidently absurd on the one side and stories that are evidently absurd on the other side, but between the two extremes we have a body of story and report which may apparently be contradictory, but which, as a matter of fact, on further sifting out and more thorough inquiry, may really be supplementary to each other. But before inquiry is held nobody can honestly say exactly what happened at Nanking. We have got something more. The right hon. Gentleman himself, the other day, in answer to a question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), made a statement which I thought was an extraordinarily important statement. Perhaps he will be able to develop it or to use it in what he is going to say a little later on. The statement which he made was that a person purporting to be the official representative of General Chiang Kai-shek called on His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai on 1st April and said
he came on behalf of General Chiang Kai-shek to express regret at the events at
Nanking for which the General assumed responsibility and for which he would afford satisfaction in due course, although he reserved the right to protest against the bombardment.
There we have, as it were, the raw material of what happened at Nanking. Now, how is it to be handled? I do strongly urge the Government to handle it by the method of inquiry. I understand, from the newspapers to-day, that the British Government are sending a Note. The Note, according to the newspapers, is to be delivered to-day, and at the same time the American representative and the Japanese representative are to hand identical Notes. I am very glad that they are Notes and not ultimata. A Note is the basis of negotiation, and, if anything goes out from here to-day, I pray that at any rate one thing goes out, namely, that this House on all sides appeals to those in charge of the Chinese negotiations to restore and to help to restore such an atmosphere of good will and conciliation as will enable further negotiations to go on about this and all other questions, and, further, that being done, that a statement, plain, clear, and emphatic, will be made that we stand where we stood when the Christmas Note was issued. In addition, I venture to make this further suggestion. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the right hon. Genleman's replies to certain very early questions this afternoon, questions that included a proposal, among others, to bring the League of Nations into play. Therefore, I am talking in the dark. Perhaps it is just as well, because I am going to make that suggestion myself. I feel perfectly certain that if it were possible for this inquiry, whatever it is, to be made by a Committee appointed by the League of Nations it would do a tremendous amount of good. I put it quite candidly on this ground, although this is not the only ground on which I put it. Everybody will appreciate the tremendous advantage that we shall get in those negotiations and in the great chance of our removing the friction, the suspicion, the ill-will and the unhappiness between us if we can withdraw ourselves, as it were, from being the direct negotiators with China and stand apart and leave the whole of the affair to be discussed and to be reported upon by an independent Committee in which we have confidence and in which the Chinese
authorities also have confidence. Therefore I hope that, whatever answer is given this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman will not dismiss altogether the proposal that the League of Nations at this stage should be brought in and should be asked to show its good services in smoothing out the Chinese difficulty.
I repeat what I have said about the Christmas message. Let us again take a view and see if we quite understand the conditions under which Chinese negotiations will have to be carried on. China is in revolution; there is a civil war going on in China. As in all revolutions, when they reach a certain point of success there is always a conflict, internal to the revolution, between the military revolutionary forces and the civil revolutionary forces. Therefore, from the nature of the situation, it is no good our trying to search for something in China that is going to give us absolute security and absolute confidence; the conditions are not there. We, with those conditions not being there, must nevertheless seize the situation and make the best of it. One of the most important things for our Government to do is to make up its mind definitely and finally and not allow anyone to budge it from that position; that it is not going to be set aside by unfortunate incidents, that when things like Nanking arise they are going to be dealt with, but they are not going to be dealt with in such a way as to mean that the Government's radical and final and original intention is going to be set on one side, while the incidents are to be dealt with as though they themselves were the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman's problem is in dealing, not with a settled government, but in dealing with revolution. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman not to allow any incident, even if it were worse than that, to push him aside from that Christmas declaration, which alone is going to be a security to this country if carried out courageously all through this trouble in China, until China is able to settle down and to develop herself on account of her internal powers. Another important point is this: The Chinese, as is perfectly plain, do suspect us. There are history and propaganda. This propaganda is based on history, even as the history is distorted. HON. MEMBERS:
"No!"] I ask hon. Members who say "No" to read the published diary of their own late leader, Lord Salisbury. There is not a Conservative statesman of last century who had anything to do with China or who had any active part—here I do not mean an active participant—not a diplomatist and Foreign Secretary who had any active part in the public life of this country during the Chinese War, the so-called Opium War and other wars, who has not left in his private diaries, since published, a condemnation of the action that was taken.
If the poor Chinamen live in fools' houses, that is no reason why we should do the same thing. They suspect us. It is partly due to propaganda, I admit, but the propaganda is based upon history, and our great problem is to remove that suspicion. That suspicion will be removed only if we go straight ahead with our intention to recognise the independence of China as a self-governing country, and with a patience and faithful adherence through all incidents and all ups and downs and through all temporary storms that strike us as we go along—a faithful adherence to the route that we mapped out for ourselves, a route which I accept as having been outlined in the Christmas declaration.
Now we have this further disturbance of more troops being sent out—not only more, but, unless the newspapers are misleading once again, a new form of arm is going. I think we ought to know why. Is it true that it is not only a Shanghai Defence Force that is going out now, but some mobile columns to be used elsewhere? What is the purpose? How many are really going out, if it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us? What exactly is in the Foreign Office's and War Office's mind in changing the programme thus far and making the situation in China more dependent on military force than it depended even after the Shanghai Defence Force was sent out? There is one piece of very bad logic and bad diplomacy that seems to be developing, and it is this: that if your people get into trouble the only way to protect them is by sending out soldiers. That is false; it is absolutely false. It is a non sequitur altogether. I can imagine a position where, by sending out soldiers—I believe it is being recognised in China—you
actually reduce the security of your people. But in any event we ought to know exactly why this new and further decision has been come to.
I would again venture to say what I said in an earlier Debate on the same subject, that no Government ever means to go into war; no Government, no War Office, no Admiralty, no Air Force ever deliberately sits down and says, "We are going to have a war, and this is how we are going to deal with it." That is not how wars are made. What happens is that the Government, with the very best intentions, is induced to take a certain stop. That step is ineffective. Some may say: "The Shanghai Defence Force is not enough. We have had experience and it has to be supplemented." What happens? In the evolution of events the innocent. Government, the well-intentioned Government, finds itself in a position when it can no longer control its own polity, but events are controlling its policy for it, and the conditions of war are created for it.
I want to know, moreover, how far we are going alone in these preparations, in the strengthening of this force? Are we in the position that, when it is all over, the Chinese will be able to turn round and say, whether with or without exaggeration—the right hon. Gentleman knows better than any of us how the temptation to exaggerate incidents is present in all moves at the present moment—are the Chinese to be in the position to say when it is all over: "The British led in everything of a military character, and when this Power, that Power and the other Power, out of its sympathy with China, declined to back them up, they themselves went on and pursued their own policy"? I urge that point. Where are we going to stand when the military phase of this is over? The general council of the Amalgamated Weavers' Association in Lancashire passed a resolution the other day upon the Chinese situation, and this is a paragraph in the resolution:
We recognise that the civil war in China is detrimental to Lancashire trade, but we know that it will be a thousand times worse if the presence of armed forces results in hostilities.
That is so. It is not the interest of this country to see that mills are opened and established and kept going in China
on British capital and on Chinese wages, but it is the interest of this country that British productions shall flow to China, and that when they get their way there, they will not find the markets circumscribed and barred on account of the prejudice and ill-will that have been created. If anybody says, "Ah, but when it is all over we will be in a position to come to our terms with the Government," and if anybody regards that as an adequate answer, it is a very unfortunate one, because surely, if the Lancashire idea and the proposition I have just laid down about exports is sound, it cannot be carried out simply because you are in a position to tell the Government what they are to do.
If there is one thing that China has shown more than any other in these days of disturbance and of up-bubbling and of chaos and of uncertainty, it is that China has discovered the effectiveness of the economic weapon. But when you have done your best and your worst the power of the Chinese boycott is going to last, and although right hon. Members opposite may feel that they are entitleld and that they have the power to pass a Trade Union Bill such as that which was issued—[Interruption.] Yes, hon. Members think that they can do it. But they cannot do it for Chinese people, and that is my point this afternoon. [Lautghter.] Hon. Members laugh, but they will have to come to the wide view in the end. The point is that unless in these days we can get into such a. relationship with Chinese public opinion and with the great moving forces in China as, when the revolution is over and the military phase has passed, we are able to sit down with them and to be regarded with confidence and goodwill, then those economic weapons will be used against us. We will have to pay the penalty of mishandling this political situation for a whole generation or perhaps more.
May I, in making a final point, widen the field a little more, because I think we must have a big comprehensive survey of this problem if we are going to deal with any particular point in it successfully? Every point has to be dealt with in relation to the whole problem. What do we find to-day? It is not only this awakening, this fermenting, this extraordinary change—a change so rapid and so great that if anybody had stood here
or stood on the other side ten years ago and talked about it and said it was coming, the mind of the House would have been rather to pooh-pooh it altogether. It is not only in China; it is coming on all over the East and going right across Asia. Wherever a factory has been established, wherever a roadway has been built, from a native college to an American, French or English University and wherever that roadway has been occupied, first of all by a troop of pilgrims going west and then occupied by them a year or two later returning east—wherever that has taken place this ferment is now working. Therefore, it is a movement of the Eastern mind, and the great problem which the right hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Office have to solve in China is the problem of how we are going to adjust ourselves, how the whole West is going to adjust itself, to the new awakened and revolutionised conditions, not only external to those States but internal to the mentality of the people of those States. It is a problem of political adjustment; it is a problem of the adjustment of treaties; it is a problem of the adjustment of economics, and the problem has to be faced under revolutionary conditions. Nobody had better reason than the right hon. Gentleman to pray that he might have been able to have faced this problem under conditions of stable and recognised government. It cannot be done. It is impossible in the nature of things and, therefore, his task is what I have been trying—somewhat imperfectly I am afraid—to explain. That is his task, at any rate as I see it.
The conclusion of it is this. I want this country to be conspicuous all the world over for its sympathetic lead in the handling of that problem, and that is why I and my hon. Friends around me feel that merely by military displays you are not facing the problem. If we are going to set out to have that moral attractiveness about us which is essential for a successful facing of the problem, the less we have to do with soldiers, the less we have to do with military demonstrations, the less we have to do with photographs in our newspapers showing the men going out—the less we have to do with all that, the better for all of us. If we are going to meet this
revolution in the same way as we met the beginnings of the revolution in Russia, or at least the early stages of the revolution in Russia, when we supported Denikin and Koltchak, and when we sent out that ill-starred and absurd expedition to Archangel, it will be all the worse. If we are going to act now in the same mind as we acted in then—though not perhaps in the same way, because history never repeats itself, or only very seldom—[An HON. MEMBER: "Always!"]—if we are going to face the revolutionary problem in the East, exemplified so well to-day in China, in the same way as we faced the outburst in the early stages of the Russian revolution,, then we are going to put ourselves in precisely the same position regarding the East and the awakened peoples of the East as the position in which we unfortunately are to-day in relation to Russia. So, taking that view of the value of this country in the world, taking that view of the future of this country, taking that view of this country's needs, of its honours and of its influences, I do beg of the right hon. Gentleman to trust less to militarism and more to the early declarations which he made. I feel certain in my own heart that in the way of the latter is not only his own success but the honour and dignity of this country.

Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: The oration which has just been delivered to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was made up according to the well-known prescription which invariably characterises the right hon. Gentleman's speeches. The main ingredient was lofty moral sentiment, which nobody would question; the residue consisted of unsound logic and unreliable statements. The only ingredient which was not to be found was any practical or constructive suggestion. Said he, in relation to one particular matter, "I am speaking in the dark." Now, he was not speaking in the dark all the time. There were moments of vision and illumination, and indeed I was reminded of the old proverb
In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
I wish it were so. I wish that the half-vision which the right hon. Gentleman has, would prevail in his party, but unfortunately his kingdom is governed, not
from the throne, but from the antechamber, if not, indeed, from humbler apartments in the palace. But there were moments of vision. One of them was when he said that this was not a problem of Shanghai alone, it was a problem of China. I agree, and it is a problem not only of China but a problem of the prestige of this country throughout the East. That prestige apparently, according to the right hon. Gentleman, depends to a large extent upon the traffic which goes to and fro upon the roadways that have been made between the "universities and schools" in this country, and the universities and schools in other countries. It does. So long as those roadways are mainly trodden by the feet of conceited young gentlemen who come over here, who get a little learning but no wisdom, who get a smattering of our law, a smattering of our history and more than a smattering of our revolutionary principles, so long the prestige of the Empire will be jeopardised by this particular traffic. Then, says the right lion. Gentleman, it is all very well to defend Shanghai, to make it impregnable, but do what you will, with all the armaments at your disposal: make it absolutely danger proof and what have you done? "You have not solved the problem, he says. Of course you have not solved the problem. What you have done is your immediate and unavoidable duty in the matter, whatever the ultimate solution of the problem may be. Of one thing the House can be assured, namely, that the ultimate solution will never be the better and will never be arrived at the quicker by any nation -shirking its responsibilities.
There are rival stories, says the right hon. Gentleman, and he has perfect confidence himself in the reports which come from the British officials. He rather diminished the value of that confidence by indicating that be had equal confidence in, the statements of Mr. Chen. Of course up to the present time—what the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary may have to say on the point I do not know—there has not been much reason to question Mr. Chen's statements as far as the facts are concerned, because the facts, so far, have been completely humiliating to this country. I said the other day in the course of some observations which I ventured to address
to the House that certain rules guided hon. Members opposite in their policy, and one of the rules which I then ventured to enunciate was this—that when your are collecting facts, you should always trust the foreign revolutionary rather than the British official. I drafted that rule much too narrowly. It should read that "You should always trust a foreign revolutionary rather than a number of officials—British, Americans, Japanese and others—supported by scores of civilians who have been eye-witnesses of the occurrences in question, none of whom has any interest in distorting the facts, and many of whom are not even friendly to the officials concerned." But this is not a matter of belief at all. Belief plays no part in it, and evidence is of no importance whatever to hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is a matter of a calculated policy which they are going to follow whatever the facte may be and whatever the information may be.
If the House will suffer me, I propose to adduce an example. You can always find in a lawsuit an indication of the line which your opponent's case is going to take by looking at his request for particulars and the interrogatories which he administers. I have watched with great attention the interrogatories administered to the Foreign Secretary by various hon. Members opposite. They have had to deal very largely with the number of casualties Buffered respectively by Europeans and Chinese in Nanking. The point of that is not far to seek. Hon. Members are about to engage upon their usual arithmetical morality in these affairs. As far as I can make out, it comes to this, that you are entitled to endanger the life of one Chinaman to preserve the life of one Englishman; but, if, in preserving the life of one Englishman, you should kill two or more Chinamen, then that is a massacre. Of course, they do not in these cases observe the rule upon which they lay so much stress in the case of industrial disputes. The true rule can be formulated in two questions, of which the first is the more important. The first is "of the two sides which is the side of the assailants, and which is the side of those who are defending their lives"? Hon. Members opposite always insist on that, if we refer to a strike—and they make us call it a lock-out. The second question is
whether by credible testimony you could say that the only way to defend life was by force"?
But really this is a calculated policy. The right hon. Gentleman devoted several sentences to the question of trained observers and persons of experience upon whom one might rely. I can tell the House the name of one trained observer and a person of experience upon whom, at least in my own constituency, the. Independent Labour party is relying. That is Colonel 1 strange Malone. Colonel Malone, so I am informed, went out to China last year at the instance of the Independent Labour party. He was one of the trained observers, and he published a veracious report upon which the "Hands off China" movement has been based. Will the House notice all this in a certain significant connection? These preliminary inquiries by this trained observer coincided with the threat on the part of the Soviet Government that there was going to be a world revolution, beginning in China, India and the East. Then we got the propaganda, we who have to fight a hard battle in industrial constituencies, where not those who share the right hon. Gentleman's Front Bench views arc in the ascendancy, but those who share the Back Bench views. The next course of events was this, that these gentlemen, with their trained observer and their report, put into words—and into lurid words—the disgusting cartoons against Great Britain and the right hon. Gentleman which have been published in the "Pravda" and other Russian newspapers. Then came the story of Shameen, as they told it, and as Moscow told it, and as it was told in Canton and Peking and everywhere where the Bussian mischief or the Socialist mischief could get over the wires. Then we got the distorted history of our relations with China and those accusations of political and industrial tyranny. Propaganda, says the right hon. Gentleman opposite, is based on history, and well he knows it, so now they are engaged in making a history on which to base the propaganda. [Interruption.] Someone with better information than mine will no doubt be able to blow my case to bits later on. They were preparing, most carefully preparing, excuses for the extremists in
China in view of what might happen at Hankow, but owing to the unparalleled self-control of our British marines at Hankow, their amiable designs were frustrated. Hankow was surrendered, I am sorry to say, without our making any provisions for compensation, and is now enjoying a municipal government based on the admirable and benevolent tractions of Chester-le-Street.
The next stage in the preparation of the case was to protest against war with China, not because they thought for a moment that His Majesty's Government wanted war, but in order that, if it should become necessary, as it did, to despatch troops there for our own self-protection, they might represent it as war at every Independent Labour party meeting in our constituencies: which in fact they have done. They were shrewd enough the next time. They put a Resolution before this House to anticipate a further step. They said that the despatch of troops to Shanghai would endanger foreigners in other parts of China. They were preparing the way for the assertions which they have made this afternoon. They were preparing the way and giving, as I have said, to the extremists on the Cantonese side, excuses in advance and defences in advance for what happened at Nanking. "What happened at Nanking," they were preparing to say, and now some of them have said, "is due to your militaristic displays at Shanghai." See how carefully it was prepared in advance. And now, in this new History of England—mav I call it "Little Arthur's History of England"?—the mythical massacre of Nanking will be added to the equally mythical massacres of Shameen and Wanhsien.
The next stage was inferentially to represent this Note of protest as an ultimatum. Some people have already been doing that to my knowledge, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman was careful to say he did not think it was an ultimatum, but the suggestion has been made."Qui s'excuse s'accuse." He knows perfectly well that every argument that can be strained to show that this Note of protest, if not an ultimatum in itself, is the inevitable forerunner of an ultimatum will be used by his friends. The other day my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health told the House that, if he had to defend himself against any-
thing in his action with regard to the Guardians (Default) Act, it was that he had in fact extended his patience further than it ought to have been extended. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has got to defend himself to this House and to the nation, for anything at all, it is on the same score. It is not because he has been truculent or provocative or jingo, but because he has pushed the virtue of patience almost to a fault. I am not going to say that he has pushed it to a fault, but certainly he has pushed it so far that to many men of not unreasonable minds it might be so represented. For what has happened? Our Concession at Hankow, which was our Concession under Treaty rights, which, however hon. Members may criticise them, were at the time subsisting, where we were upon our lawful occasions, has been taken from us, not under negotiations, for those negotiations were a sham, and all negotiations are a sham on the part of a side that has no force with which to back itself.

Mr. J. JONES: Now we know where you are.

Mr. BANKS: See how hon. Members opposite exult in the humiliation! I say we had to hand over the Concession because Mr. Chen took those precautions, which hon. Members opposite say we must in no circumstances ever take, of having force to back him when he was negotiating. Our flag was insulted, the memorial to our dead was destroyed, citizens were deprived of their homes and their goods, and there was not a word of protest from His Majesty's Government. Was not that patience? Was that jingoism and arrogance and military provocativeness? I say that it was patience pushed, if possible, to a fault.
May I venture a foreshadowing of the next step which hon. Members opposite will take? They say: "If in these circumstances"—the facts with regard to Nanking—"you make no protest, we are very glad, because you give carte blanche to the Chinese Reds to commit further atrocities; if you do protest, we shall say-that a protest would inevitably lead to an ultimatum, and that an ultimatum would inevitably lead to war, and if it comes to war then," say they—they have said so in my constituency—"we shall go back to the dear old policy of 1920, direct
action, and stop the troops and stop the munitions of war." That is the Resolution which has been passed by the Independent Labour Party in my constituency under the amiable presidency of Colonel L'Estrange Malone, one of the deepest-dyed traitors who ever defaced his country's history. I have taken the precaution to circulate among my own friends and among my enemies—and I believe that some of my enemies in my constituency will be shamed into joining my side—some of the utterances and publications of Colonel L'Estrange Malone. Why are they going back to direct action? They have done it more than once. They did it in 1920 in the case of Russia. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) described it accurately as a direct challenge to the Constitution. I think ho was a member of it at the time. The positively rapturous constitutionalism of some Front Bench Gentlemen after the general strike has been an amazing thing. One can now quote their speeches from Conservative platforms amidst jeers and shouts of reprobation from our opponents. I do not trouble in my constituency ever to try to make up a fresh speech. I simply read the speeches of the right hon. Member for Derby and the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), and I know that I shall get just as much hooting and heckling as though I read one of my own.
Why are these steps always carefully taken in advance of the event, as they are? Partly on the general principle followed by hon. Members opposite of always pronouncing sentence first and hearing the evidence afterwards, and partly because they are giving time for their extreme revolutionary friends in China to receive the news that the Labour party in this House is backing them and preparing excuses for them, and to harden their hearts accordingly. "We, the Government," says the right hon. Gentleman opposite, "are spreading suspicion in China." Why, what have he and his friends done from the beginning of this movement, by telegrams, by meetings, by protests and by propaganda, but to spread suspicion, north, south, east and west in China? If there is suspicion, they have fomented it; if there is hatred, they have inflamed it; if there are difficulties, they have made them worse; and if there
is disaster, they will be the principal authors of it.
There was great indignation in this House the other day because it was said that I had insulted Mr. Ghen. Good Heavens, what a frightful atrocity! I do not know that I insulted him very much. 1 called him a lawyer, I know, but if it insulted him, it also insulted all my colleagues at the Bar, and they appeared to take it with reasonable equanimity. The real bitterness was because I called him a Communist, and that is not so much because I insulted Mr. Chen as because I inclusively insulted some hon. Members opposite. I know very well that there is not one of them who would not deny that he was formerly a Communist, because the Labour party does not allow Communists in its ranks. They are prohibited, they are anathema, they are ex-communicated. But the House will remember the old motto about the Roman Catholic Church in the old days: "Where is the Catholic Church, and what is the Catholic Church?" The answer used to be:"Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia" ": "Where Peter is, there is the Church." Well, where is Tomsky, there are Communists.
With regard to the foreign policy of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, 1 have described it in terms which I think are amply justified by facts known to everybody in this House. With regard to the policy of my right hon. Friend, I am one of those who have ventured to think that it might have had possibly more vigour at an earlier stage, and if I have ventured to criticise it, he occupies a situation in which he can afford to treat, with his usual urbanity and good temper, a criticism from a follower who is devotedly his admirer. May I go back for one moment to history and suggest to both sides of the House a fairly good synopsis of what British foreign policy ought to be? [An HON. MEMBER: "Little Arthur's History?"] No, more reliable than that, and not Green's History either, but the Memoirs written about that great man George Canning. It was said of him, by one who knew him and who had followed his policy:
It was Mr. Canning's policy to obtain for Great Britain the confidence and goodwill of the people of other nations, not, however, by flattering their prejudices, or
encouraging their discontent, but by showing a fixed determination to act with impartial justice towards them. While he was at the helm, there was not one of the European Governments which dared to provoke the vengeance of England, because they well knew that war with England would be a measure unpopular to hazard. Thus Mr. Canning was enabled to hold language and to carry on measures in defiance of the principles and prejudices of some, and contrary to the wishes of the Governments of the great Continental Powers. By this means he obtained over these Governments an influence which he employed not only to promote the interests of England, but the general prosperity of the world.
5.0 p.m.
The policy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which is always lofty morality coupled with negotiations, reports, discussions, more discussions, more reports, and more negotiations, while men and women are being outraged and murdered, is not likely to supersede the principles laid down by Mr. Canning. Even if the Foreign Secretary has not exhibited all the vigour and all the resolution of Mr. Canning, or of Lord Palmerston either, at any rate I shall seek for those who resemble him, not in the pages of "Pravda" or the "Workers' Weekly," but in the gallery of great British statesmen.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is not so long ago that a speech was made by the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down on the problem of our relations with India. The speech was very similar to the one we have just been listening to, and that speech was printed in India in full, not merely in the English Press but in the vernacular Press of that country. And why? It was printed in full because they wished their readers to see how hateful an Englishman could be. That speech of the hon. and learned Member, read far more freely and extensively in India than any speech by the Secretary of State, did more harm to the English reputation in India than anyone knows. To-day he has repeated that admirable but misguided instruction of a foreign people. The Chinese will read his speech to-day as a sample of British statesmanship. They will learn from him what he thinks of the miserable students who come over to Europe or America to acquire Western ideas. They will realise how low a place is occupied in Western estimation by everything and by everybody Chinese. The hon. and learned Member twitted the
Leader of the Opposition on the absence from his speech of one solitary constructive suggestion. I waited all through the speech of the hon and learned Member to discover the measure of below-the-Gangway statesmanship, but, having hurled this gibe at the Labour benches, he did not think that he was any longer a statesman but he remembered that he was an attorney. He remembered that when you have the worst case on earth the only thing possible is to forget constructive policy or any useful suggestions, and to attack the Labour party. He said he had given up making any sort of speeches himself in the country, and that now he merely quoted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), and used their speeches as his own. Well, I think that would probably be rather useful material. At the same time, the hon. and learned Member need not make any variation at all in his speeches. The same speech that he has made to-day will do duty in this House over and over again, and I feel certain that it will be even more rapturously received in the constituency which he represents for a short time.

Mr. BANKS: It has been.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand that an hon. and gallant Gentleman who used to be a Member of this House is his opponent. I understand that the weapon of the hon. and learned Member in turning him down is to describe him as a "double-dyed traitor." I wonder whether he would compare his record during the War with that of Colonel Malone? I wonder whether his record during the War—

Mr. BANKS: This is the second time that the right hon. and gallant Member has made the mistake of a personal comparison about War records. Since he has asked me, may I tell him that I did all I could by joining as a private soldier in August, 1924, and serving in India and Mesopotamia until the end of the War. We are not comparing War records.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I would ask hon. Members to
allow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to proceed with his speech.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is nothing to withdraw, except the statement that Colonel Malone was a "double-dyed traitor." When I hear that withdrawn I will begin to think about the matter. But let me reply to the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks). Better let me, at any rate, stand acquitted of the charge of not making any constructive suggestions. I do think that this is the opportunity where everybody in this House should seek to find a way out. We know quite well that things during the last two months have been continually drifting from bad to worse, and I think that it is time that all of us who have the interests of this country at heart should try and look a little ahead. I would like to know whether the Foreign Office is looking ahead. We may dislike it exceedingly, but the possibility has got to be faced that in China we are seeing the beginning of a Bolshevist revolution. In a short time China may be Bolshevik. Just as when the Russian revolution spread we pinned our faith over and over again to the various revolutionary Governments that were not Bolshevik, so to-day, you see people in this country and out there in China pinning their faith to a possible split in the Kuomin-tang movement and the chance of Chiang Kai-shek and others breaking away from the movement and making the revolution moderate. We have seen moderates in revolution after revolution go down. Once a revolution starts, more particularly a revolution following 15 years of civil war, no moderate Government has a chance, and the probability is that we have got to face in China a Bolshevist Government governing that country, and that they will spread over from the Yantze to the north, and the situation we have to face at Shanghai will have to be faced at Tientsin and Peking, and that the whole of China, as we know it, may soon be a Bolshevist country. It may not be a pleasant thing to look forward to, but we have to suit our policy to meet that possibility, and do let us, therefore, avoid the mistake we made in Russia of unnecessarily and uselessly antagonising the prospective Government. There is not one statesman
on the Front Bench opposite who, if he could go back to 1918 now, would carry through in regard to Russia the same policy of stimulating reactionary and counter-revolutionary Governments that were carried on through 1918 to 1923. If we could live that period over again there would be no expedition to Archangel; no backing of Koltchak, Denikin, and Wrangel. We should play a very different game, and a more successful game, if we had again to meet that situation in Russia, knowing what we now know of the results of a Bolshevist Government. Do not let us repeat that in China. That is the first thing to lay down. Let us see that, whatever else happens, we do not send an Archangel expedition to Tientsin. Like the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, I was afraid when I saw that this new expeditionary force had arms of a different colour to the one going to Shanghai. A defensive and an expeditionary force—a very different thing. We, above all, do not want to start a British force wandering through China with a policy changing from moment to moment. Let us, therefore, avoid anything of that sort.
The next thing we have to avoid is backing the wrong horse. I was delighted to hear at Question Time to-day an answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I was delighted to hear from him that He will see that His Majesty's Government, which has observed up till now an absolute neutrality between North and South, will maintain also that neutrality between any section, or any two sections, of the warring Governments, and that that will be applied to divisions in the Kuomintang as much as to the North and South. I believe that is the only safe policy. We must not take any sides. And when we had that statement from the right hon. Gentleman to-day, at the same moment there appeared in the Press an extremely suspicious paragraph which largely belies it. I notice in the "Evening Standard" that Chang-Tso-Lin's Northern troops have raided the Soviet Embassy in Peking, dragged out the Russians there and carried them off. That would not matter if Chang-Tso-Lin had done it on his own, but it is stated in the paper that Chang-Tso-Lin's troops have done that as
a result of the orders of the Diplomatic Corps. [An HON. MEMBER: "On their authorisation !"]—on the authorisation of the Diplomatic Corps. That is an extremely serious step. That is taking sides. The only thing to be said in favour of that is, that it is the action of the whole diplomatic body, and not the isolated action of England. What we have to avoid more particularly is the isolated action of England. That is the danger.
Faced with this position, what do the Government do? They send a Note to the Southern Government demanding apologies for what happened at Nanking, indemnities, and assurances as to the future. I wonder why they sent that Note? If it were conceivable that the reply to that Note Should be apologies, indemnities, and assurances which could be relied upon for the future, I should at first say I was wrong in my reading of the position, and that the Government bad done perfectly right. But do any Members of the Government really believe that that Note will receive any such reply? It may receive no reply at all. It will probably receive a reply which hon. Members on the other side of the House will consider as impertinent. What are we to do then? What can we do? It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to bluster about the feeble action of his own Government over Hankow, but what can we do? What would the Government be able to do if this contemptuous person called Chen ventured to send an impertinent reply? In the old days, of course, we could send a fleet and blockade the coast all along, and prevent them from getting any goods in. We cannot do that now. Our allies and the League of Nations would not allow us, and if we were mad enough to do it, the people who would suffer would not be the Chinese but Lancashire. No, we cannot send the fleet and blockade the country. What else can we do? Of course, what we can do is to occupy Shanghai and Tientsin with an Army and hold them—hold them as long as Egypt, if you like. Is that going to get us any for rader? The difficulty there, again, is that what we could have done in the 19th Century we cannot do in the 20th Century. There are several nations who would not agree to it. America would not agree, and Japan would not agree. Therefore, that alternative is ruled out. too.

Mr. BANKS: Wait and see!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Now we understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's constructive policy. It is "Wait and see."

Mr. BANKS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstood me. He said America and Japan would not join in—would not suffer it. It was to that observation I replied.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is just leading up to my next point. If the hon. and learned Gentleman only exercises a little patience, he will learn something. We cannot blockade the coast. We cannot seize the ports and use the Customs. What we can do, therefore, is to get into complete agreement with the other people who are interested, and my constructive policy is that we should try to get into complete agreement with the people who have the same interests as ourselves. I am afraid it is too late now to save the capital invested in China, but we can save the lives of the people, and, at any rate, even if there be a Bolshevist Government in future, we can start on an equal footing with other countries. Hon. Members in this House, and, I am afraid, even the Foreign Office, have expressed great surprise at the attitude of Japan—surprise that they have not backed us up more thoroughly in the action we have taken. I do ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to consider what has actuated, principally, the feelings of the statesmen in Japan. I am absolutely certain, although I have not been there since 1918, that every statesman in Japan is looking on at China with fear and trembling. The one thing of which they are afraid in Japan is a Bolshevist revolution in Japan. They are afraid of a revolution in Japan; they always have been. They are going to look at this question of China, not from the point of view even of their own financial interests in China, but of the reaction of that upon Japan. I, myself, think that the danger of a social revolution in Japan does not exist. It is an industrial country where they cannot afford a Bolshevist revolution, but there is no doubt that the fear of that is the guiding principle in Japanese statesmanship today, and you will not get, therefore, cooperation with Japan if that co-operation involves war. For the one thing that
brings revolution is war, and against war Japan will be firm.
How about America? I have always advocated that if in our Far-Eastern policy we could get alongside America we should, at any rate, be sate from war. I do not underestimate the difficulties of getting alongside America. They mistrust us, and, unfortunately, largely the American missionary element in China distrusts us, perhaps, more than most Americans. But our interests are at one. The problem in China is very like the problem in Mexico, and I believe that even now, if the right hon. Gentleman could make an opportunity to go to America, and work out with the President and the Secretary of State there a common policy in China, that would be the best possible solution for the people of this country. I am certain that it would not mean war, because America will not have war in Mexico, where they can have it so easily. Conquering Mexico would be child's play to conquering China. They will not have war, but we should, at any rate, have a policy which could look ahead, and which could make friendship possible with a future Chinese Soviet Republic.
To have a vision of what is coming in China is the first thing. Let us realise that, whatever we like, China is going to be shortly a Bolshevist Republic. Let us realise that we cannot repeat in our dealings with that Republic the mistakes we made in connection with the Russian Republic; that we must avoid those mistakes at all costs. Let us realise that the capital invested by the people of this country in China may be lost, that we may not be able to get it back either in the form of compensation or in any other way. But, as far as war is concerned, we have not the weapon to use, and we cannot use it. In spite of that, let us make up our minds to have the best possible relations with the Chinese Government. That can only be if we and America, whose interests are absolutely identical in that country, make common cause on peaceful lines to get into contact with this new Government as soon as may be, and by showing our good will for all that is sound and right in this revolutionary party in China, hatred of foreign domination, hatred of the domination of the two Chungs, the desire for peace and the termination of 15 years of
civil war—by showing our sympathy with them on those lines, we could, at any rate, start the new relations between England and the new China on a better footing and with better hopes than we have, as yet, in our relations with the Russian Republic.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Sir Alfred Mond.

HON. MEMBERS: Chamberlain! and Interruption.

Mr. MOSLEY: What is your policy?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have called on the right hon. Gentleman, and I must ask hon. Members to hear him.

Mr. MOSLEY: On a point of Order. We are debating the policy of the Government, and we have not yet heard what it is.

HON. MEMBERS: Chamberlain!

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman who is now seeking to address the House announced 12 months ago that he was going to resign his seat?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I call on Sir Alfred Mond.

HON. MEMBERS: Chamberlain!

Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. and gallant Member who has just addressed the House has brought back the Debate, at any rate in the concluding part of his speech, to the tangled history of Chinese government. [Interruption.]

Mr. PURCELL: Poison gas!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) not to interrupt.

Mr. PURCELL: You might ask him not to supply poison gas.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member is making an entirely untrue statement, and we cannot have interruptions by Moscow friends in the House of Commons.

Mr. PURCELL: Poison gas!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, for the second time, not to interrupt.

Mr. BECKETT: Let the right hon. Gentleman go back to Poland!

Sir A. MOND: I was about to remark that this question applies not only to the trade, but to the whole future of civilisation. We can see, in the short Debate we have had, that the question is one of such extraordinary complication and difficulty that I am not surprised that all the constructive policies which have been advanced are extremely difficult to work out in practice. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition making his speech, it seemed to me he was dealing with a set of circumstances, a description of a country, a conception of the mentality of its people so entirely foreign and different from all 1 know of the country, and from the almost daily cables I receive from that country, that I wondered whether we were discussing the same proposition at all. We have heard two speeches from the other side referring to "the Chinese Government." may I begin by saying there is-no Chinese Government. The best that could be said—and that would not be correct—would be that there are two Chinese Governments; indeed, as far as I am aware, there are about four Chinese Governments. We hear about revolution. Revolution against whom, or what? There is no revolution in China. What there is in China is a series of generals, commanding various provinces, who have been fighting each other now for a large number of years, and who are fighting each other to-day. There is no rebellion in China against any Chinese King or Emperor. The fight between the North and the South is not a fight between different political principles, because China is a Republic. The fight between the commanders of the Yangtse Valley and the Cantonese Government is purely civil war; and, may I add, the Cantonese Government are pure interlopers in the Yangtse Valley? They have no right in the Yangtse Valley.

Mr. BECKETT: What right have we got?

Sir A. MOND: Let me detail the position in China. I will come to our position in a moment. Hon. Members must realise that China is a country with 400,000,000 people—about as large as Europe—and that we occupy in that country a space about as big as Hamp-
stead Garden Suburb. To look on the Chinese problem as a problem of the British against the Chinese or the Chinese against the British is to make a profound mistake about the whole position. If there were no Concessions and no foreigners in China you would still have this war between these rival generals, this fighting between North and South which has gone on, I believe, for 2,000 yeairs—long before any foreigners ever set foot in China. There is no Chinese Government as such for anybody to negotiate with, and that is one of the difficulties in this whole tangled story. When the right hon. Gentleman says, "Let us negotiate," the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may truly reply that there is nobody authorised to negotiate with us.

Mr. MONTAGUE: That is why we did it.

Sir A. MOND: We could not, and no other country has done so. We tried it at Hankow; I do not think it was very wise, but we did try to negotiate with what was called a de facto Government. What has occurred at Hankow has proved that the attempt broke down, that that authority has been entirely unable to carry out any undertaking it gave to us. Hon. Members opposite may take note of the fact that the Japanese, who are not British, had to fight a bloody battle to defend their own Concession in Hankow; 150 marines succeeded in defending it. I wish hon. Members opposite would get out of their minds the idea that we are alone in China, that this is a question between China and Great Britain. If they would only remember that this is a question in which Japan, America, Italy and every other country is equally—or largely—interested, they would have an entirely different conception of things. Even if we had no Defence Force in Shanghai, there would be a defence force there from other nations; the Japanese have probably got two divisions in China at this moment. The only result of our not having troops there would have been that Great Britain, the leading Power in China, the greatest commercial Power in China, the foreign Power with most people in China, would have had to depend on the troops of other countries for the defence of its people there. That would be an extraordinarily humiliating
position. It would not impress the Chinese people, and it would not help our trade.
I would like to say a word about the question of trade. It would be a mistake to suppose that we are doing no trade in China, that no Chinaman will buy our goods. That is entirely untrue. The Chinaman is only too anxious to buy our goods. No official in China in connection with a company in which I am interested has left his post; every one is to-day carrying on just as before. The Chinese merchants are coming to us anxious and ready to buy our goods, and are only stopped by-—what? Not by Chinese Nationalist sentiments, but by Cantonese gunmen employed from Moscow. The real fact is that in China to-day you have to fight the Soviet Government of Moscow.

Mr. BECKETT: Moscow is as good as Palestine any day.

Sir A. MOND: I hold in my hand a bundle of propaganda, issued by the Soviet Propaganda Committee in China, in which British troops are represented as massacring thousands of Chinese at Hankow—where not a shot was ever fired; representing British steamers as deliberately running down Chinese junks in the Yangtse River in order to drown those on board. This is leaflet No. 4 of the Bolshevik Propaganda Department.

Mr. MONTAGUE: We are not responsible for that.

Sir A. MOND: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when giving us a picture of China, did not begin at the beginning. Anyone who has followed the question must know that for years the Moscow Government have supported colleges in Moscow in order to train agents to carry Bolshevism to China. They have carried out that work for eight years with great skill. Thousands of agents were sent out there in order to Bolshevise China. I do not say they are not entitled to Bolshevise China, but it is all a part of the deliberate policy they have laid down to destroy Great Britain and to destroy the British Empire. Therefore, it is useless to ask us to negotiate with people whose one object is to destroy us. They have no desire to negotiate. You have only to read their
newspapers and their publications in order to see that their one desire is so to cripple our trade throughout the world that extensive unemployment will be created here, and they think that in that way they can at last get that revolution in England which is standing in the way of world revolution. It may be said that revolution is the best thing that can happen. I am not arguing that point. That is the policy they have carried out logically, pertinaciously and continuously, with the greatest ability. Do not let us shut our eyes, or hide our heads in the sand like the ostrich, and pretend that that policy does not exist. The hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said we might have to face the prospect of a China Bolshevised from North to South. That would be a very great disaster to this country, and to the world. It is possible it may happen. Certainly, it is not in our power to stop it, and nobody would advocate that any Government in this country should try to stop an enterprise of so vast a character.
What is our position in China? It is a very simple one. We have a relatively small number of people there occupying trading posts, which are known as concessions—very small and insignificant in comparison with the size of China. They have enjoyed there for generations certain rights as civilised people. The other day a man sent me a photograph—any hon. Member opposite can see it—to show what was going on in China to-day. It is a photograph of a most terrible character. A wretched Chinaman is being executed. What for? Because he would not accept the bank-notes of one of these Governments. He would not take that banknote, and there was a picture of his head being cut off.

Mr. BECKETT: What about Chiang?

Sir A. MOND: Chiang is no friend of mine, nor is any other Chinese general. What I am pointing out is that British people trading in China do not want to be put in the same position as Chinamen—that is, running the danger of having their heads cut off by an executioner in the street if they will not take the banknotes of a bankrupt Chinese general; and that is what would happen if we did
not enjoy extra-territorial rights and if British subjects were put in the same position as the Chinese. Hon. Members opposite never seem to think of that; in fact, I do not think they know very much about China—[Interruption.] If they did, they would recognise that in China many things are permitted which would not suit them. In China they execute people by putting their heads into chaff-cutters. Our people are not used to that kind of execution.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Are you asking us to believe all that?

Sir A. MOND: I can show the hon. Member a photograph. I can show snapshots which were taken and sent to me by someone in China. The snapshots are so terrible that I do not ask anybody to look at them if it would hurt them—they are too horrible. But there is nothing very new in that. Anybody who knows China knows of the public executions which go on, and, naturally, the subjects of European powers who are to reside in that country want to be protected from that kind of treatment. Hon. Members opposite are always talking of trade. How is Lancashire to sell any goods in China if every Englishman has to leave China because it is not safe for him to live there?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Hear, hear! That is our whole case.

Sir A. MOND: I am responsible for a large number of Englishmen on a Chinese staff, and they will certainly all come home if what occurred in the Hankow Concession is repeated in the other Concessions in China. They say simply that they cannot live under those terms, and they will come away. It is not a question of their lives being in danger, but they simply will not live there, and our whole Chinese business will drift into the hands of Chinese merchants. People there all assure me that our action in sending a defence force to Shanghai has been the salvation of every Englishman throughout the length and breadth of China. When we left Hankow the Chinese did not think we were making a generous gesture—this illustrates the mentality of the Chinese—what they said was "Englishmen plenty fear Chinese." That is a fact; and that is how they would enter upon negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman the
Leader of the Opposition said we must take the mentality of a people as we find it; but that is what hon. Members opposite will not do. They think the position is as though we were dealing with the League of Nations in Geneva or the Hague Tribunal. We are not. We are dealing with hundreds of millions of entirely uneducated people, who cannot read or write, but who are easily led, and filled with all the anti-foreign prejudice which was evident in the Boxer lighting. They do not know whether you are talking about Bolshevism or Imperialism, but they are told to kill the foreign devil—any foreign devil, it does not matter who.

Mr. BECKETT: The Germans are trading there without soldiers.

Sir A. MOND: The Germans are not trading any more or any better than we are.

Mr. BECKETT: They are quite safe and have no troops.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) not to interrupt further.

Sir A. MOND: The Japanese themselves are no longer safe there—in an Eastern country—and does the hon. Member really imagine that the Chinese coolie can distinguish between people of one European nation and another? It is no more easy for them than it is for us here to distinguish between the peoples of Eastern races.

Mr. BECKETT: Do not quibble.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must again ask the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) not to interrupt.

Sir A. MOND: I am dealing with the general proposition. The people who suffered most at Nanking were the Americans, though the Americans had sent no defence force to China. They were not Imperialists, they had taken no action, and yet we had to save American women from being violated and American men had their fingers cut off, and it was an American Admiral who started the shelling. It is useless to try to make out that this is a Chinese and a British row and to condemn the Government for taking action, representing us as having endangered life out
there. That is not the ease. The state of things out there is such that if Mr. Chen and the Cantonese Government wish to—and I believe they may wish to—protect the lives of white people throughout China, or even of parts of China, they cannot do it, because they are not in a position to control the situation, and therefore we have to try to do it ourselves to the best of our ability. If this Defence Force had not gone to Shanghai, is there a shadow of a doubt that what happened at Nanking would have happened at Shanghai on a thousand times' bigger scale?

Mr. BECKETT: What did happen at Nanking?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Gateshead will not refrain from interrupting,. I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. If I have offended, I am sorry, but I would point out that it is my experience during the short time I have been in the House that if an hon. Member has been obviously distorting facts when he has been speaking, he has been corrected.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not risen to correct any point on which he may have been misrepresented, but he is engaging in a continuous flow of interruptions.

Mr. BECKETT: That is not true.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Withdraw!

Sir A. MOND: After all, the American Government received a report from their consul, and are we to suppose, in face of that fact, that the Americans are entirely ignorant of what happened at Nanking?

Mr. BECKETT: I have seen a cablegram from the American Press stating that all the news about Nanking received from London was regarded with grave suspicion, because they suspected that the British Government was bolstering up a weak ease.

Sir A. MOND: The American Consul reported the facts and Washington sent a protest based on the information of its own Consul in China. May I also point out that the American Consulate was
looted, and that is what they have been complaining about. Not only that, but American nationals were violated. That is what they complained of, and that information does not come from London at all. The Japanese Consulate was also looted, and three great Powers of the world have deliberately sent Notes of protest on the representations of three representative officers of their own. In the face of these facts, there cannot be any doubt as to what happened in Nanking, and to have any doubt of that kind is so ridiculous that I cannot understand any intelligent person pursuing such an argument. The shelling which took place at Nanking by the Americans was undertaken in order to save the lives of American nationals. Personally I do not think the Cantonese could have avoided the situation which arose because the Government was so much out of hand, and under those circumstances it is extraordinarily difficult for any Government to find any established authority with which to negotiate. We do not know really what is going to happen in China, but if the War Lord of Northern China manages to get to Hankow in six months' time what is the good of negotiating at the present moment with Mr. Chen? If, on the other hand, Mr. Chen gets to Peking in six months, what is the use of negotiating with the War Lord at Peking? All the Government can do is to protect the lives and property of the British nationals and join with the other civilised Governments in protecting their rights. That is no departure from our policy of friendliness to the Chinese people.
I was sorry to hear the remarks which have been made about Chinese students who came over to this country. I know we have over here Chinese students who come to study science. I know they are working for us in China and working very successfully. The Chinese are a very able people, and it will be a thousand pities if over a domestic controversy we create any impression in China that we are hostile to the Chinese or to their development, and do not respect their literature and their art which dates back a thousand years. My only fear in China is not that they will become Bolshevists, but that they will cease to be Chinese. The Chinaman is
a hard-working, honest and industrious person, and he has no use for Bolshevism. That is why I do not think if the Chinese should become Bolshevists they will remain Bolshevists for any length of time. We should carry on our policy of friendly relations and reasonable alterations of Chinese Treaties with due regard to the difficulties of the situation. That is the policy which I hope the Foreign Secretary will follow, but you will not enhance or improve that policy by giving the impression that you are being chased out of China by violence. People respect you when they realise that you are prepared to protect your rights, and when they know you are strong enough to protect your rights. They also respect you when they know that you intend to deal honestly and justly with them. The Chinese know that British commerce in China stands higher than that of any other country in the world. In commercial matters we have always worked side by side with the Chinese, and I have no doubt we shall continue to do so again as soon as a sound system of government is established in China.
We know the Cantonese troops have been looting, and the Northern troops would probably have looted Shanghai on their way north. The Southern forces may have looted Shanghai against the orders of their General and other forces may have sacked Shanghai. That is the history of civilised warfare and I think we have done wisely and well to prevent that happening in the British Concession, and it is not in the interests of anyone that it should have happened. I am sure it is not in the interests of the Lancashire weavers that Shanghai should be destroyed, and that no trade should be done by Lancashire in that part of the world for many years to come. I am just as interested in sending goods to China, but I do not think we need have any apprehension that when this trouble in China has died out the Chinese will be as ready to receive us and do business with us as they were before the trouble began. We want to act in China with the other Powers, and we do not want to see our Government isolated and alone in giving away our rights. No other great Power has done so, and there would be nothing more foolish than for us to appear in a role that would be entirely misunderstood by other Powers.
I say to hon. Members opposite, do not let us make the task of the British Minister any more difficult than is necessary. Let us protect the lives of British residents who I know are now living under a terrible strain and a feeling of insecurity. I am speaking with sincerity on this point because I am receiving daily cables informing me that our people in China are going through terrible times, and they do not feel that the lives of their wives and families are safe. One thing that heartens them is that they know the British people are standing at their back and will protect them. The British people in China have done no wrong and committed no crime against the Chinese, and therefore I cannot understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite in regard to them. I cannot understand why they should refuse to support the Government in carrying out a policy of statesmanlike defence and adopting a conciliatory attitude as long as conciliation can do any good.

Mr. WHEATLEY: When the right hon. Baronet who has just resumed his seat rose to address the House there was a demonstration on these benches calling for the Foreign Secretary. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that demonstration was perfectly justified. If there was any purpose at all in having this Debate to-day it was that we might hear from the Foreign Secretary what was the actual situation in China at the moment, so that we might have an opportunity of discussing that statement. Replying to questions earlier in the day the Foreign Secretary informed us that he intended to make rather an important statement, and if he insists on his attitude of delaying that statement and withholding it from the House we may require another day to do what we might have done to-day in the way of discussing the information which the right hon. Gentleman has to submit to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) began his remarks by chaffing some of my colleagues about their friends in Moscow. That morsel was so sweet that he continually repeated it. Surely that is evidence that he has some friends abroad, because the Monds did not come over with the Conqueror; they arrived in Britain after the soil had been prepared.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to tell us that there was really nothing in
6.0 p.m.
China about which the rival forces could reasonably contend. He told us that there was a Republic in China and therefore you have no cause for political trouble. If the dispute in China were really a political one, I am sure it would receive less attention from His Majesty's Government. While the dispute was merely a political one there was no talk of sending troops to Shanghai. While the yellow Chinese ruled in Shanghai His Majesty's Government had no fear of the Yellow Peril. It was only when the Red Chinese threatened Shanghai that the lives of the British residents were said to be in danger. I might also add that it became sacred to His Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Bolshevists in every part of the world wished to destroy us. I wonder whom he means by "us"? Does he include the million miners who had to be fed from Moscow while defending themselves against the right hon. Gentleman? Does he include the million of registered unemployed in this country, who in their native land cannot have a reasonable opportunity of earning their daily bread?

Sir A. MOND: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but, in case he wants an answer, I should say that if he had his way there would be 10 million unemployed.

Mr. WHEATLEY: As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends regard themselves as the country; they do not include in the country the great wage-earning multitude. [Interruption.] It is the same spirit that has animated them against the working-class movement in China as has inspired them to introduce into this House the Trade Union Bill. I am not going to join in the eulogies that are paid to our Foreign Secretary for his handling of the Chinese situation. I think he has made a dreadful mess of things. He has intensified anti-British feeling in China; he has made France, on this question, an openly declared enemy; he has made Japan hostile, and he has made America cold and suspicious. The right hon. Gentleman, as has already been pointed out to him, had a unique opportunity of gaining for himself and for his country a comfortable place in the heart of the East. He should have realised that a great change was taking place in
that part of the world. But Toryism, being unchangeable itself, cannot see change anywhere else, and so they never realise until it is too late that they have arrived in a new situation requiring new methods and new views. What is being witnessed in China to-day is the natural outburst of an awakened, outraged people against the possession by foreigners of their native land.
We were told that we entered, in 1914. the greatest War in the world's history, on behalf of small nationalities—on behalf of the freedom of small nationalities. Are we now going to enter on another war, because we deny the freedom of the largest nationality in the world? Every principle, ethical and political, preached in this country is being condemned by our position in China. The only justification for our position there is that of superior force. China belongs to the Chinese by every rule of nationality, just as much as Britain belongs to the British. If we could only for a moment practise in our politics what we preach in our politics, we would realise what our view would be if the positions were reversed, and the Chinese occupied to-day the principal ports of Britain. Should we be moved by the spectacle of a Member in a Chinese Parliament getting up and saying, "It is only a little patch that we occupy; why make any fuss about it?"—and of the same right hon. Gentleman proceeding in the same member as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) did this afternoon when he preached that he only knew how to rule China, and that the Chinese did not know how to govern their native land? I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman would view that situation, but I can assure him that, if the Chinese were situated in Glasgow as the British are situated in Shanghai, if they insisted on depriving Glasgow of its local government, as we have done with the municipal affairs of that Eastern City, if they defied the laws of Scotland and insisted on being judged by Chinese laws, there would not be a pacifist on the Clyde until the Chinese had been removed. What is good for Scotland is equally good for China, and the freedom that we claim for ourselves at home we should not be afraid to grant to those with whom we have to deal abroad.
The right hon. Gentleman, as is usual in a Debate of this kind, reminded us that our position in China rested on treaties, and he used that language in a manner calculated to induce us to believe that they were treaties entered into by two free and independent peoples discussing and negotiating a bargain. We all know the history of the Chinese Treaties. We know that they were obtained by force at the end of a war conducted in support of an immoral cause. We know that they have since rested on that force. We know that to-day we should imprison people in Britain for doing exactly what we as a nation did when we forced the Chinese to subscribe to those treaties. We claim that the demand of China for absolute national independence is perfectly just—that you ought to treat China as you would treat France or America, that you ought to deal and negotiate with China as you would with any other country possessing an approximately equal military force to yours. We submit that the mere fact of your having 450,000,000 people who have not yet been trained in the art of using poison gas and machine guns is no justification for the poison gas merchant or the machine-gun promoter imposing his political and economic views on these peaceful people. [Iterruption.] The other side claim that they have sent their military forces to Shanghai to protect the lives of British residents, to protect British property, and to defend our national prestige. They have even gone so far as to accuse Members on this side of the House of refusing to move in the direction of protecting the lives of British residents in China. Why, we are the only people who have proposed a reasonable scheme of protection for the British residents there. We have proposed to bring them home. [An HON. MEMBER: "And their property, too?"] If they are in danger, surely, it is the business of the nation to take then out of danger. Hon. Members interject the word "property." If there were no British property to be defended in Shanghai, there would be no British forces in Shanghai.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: What about the workers in this country—the workers in Lancashire—who rely on our trade with China?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Lady asks me what about the workers of this country who rely on our trade with China, and I think it is only common courtesy to the hon. Lady that I should at this point deal with the question she has raised. I beg to inform the hon. Lady that we did not erect cotton mills and build shipyards in Shanghai for the purpose of helping British workers. We erected those workshops by British capital. The four largest mills in Shanghai are owned to-day by British capitalists. There are a number of shipyards, large or small, in Shanghai, at any rate in China, that are also owned by British capitalists. I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary, when he rises from his lethargy and addresses this House, will inform us how many British workers are employed by British capitalists in China? Does not he know that those mills were erected, not for the purpose of helping British labour but to take from British labour the market for its goods?
British capital went to Shanghai to erect mills because it had the raw material at its doors there, had the market at its gate, and it had labour at a penny an hour. It was under the protection of a section of the Chinese who made trade unionism illegal; and a nation in which trade unionism is illegal is the ideal of British capitalism. Employing cheap Chinese labour at 10d. a day, it was able to undercut and undersell Lancashire in what used to be a market almost monopolistic to Lancashire. The very success of British capitalism in Shanghai spells the destruction of Lancashire's principal industry. Every effort that is made to oust us from the markets of the East is an effort to oust us from the means of employing our people at home. And one of the most ironical features of the present situation is that Lancashire employers and workers, whose industry is being threatened by the sweated labour employed by British capitalists in Shanghai, should be taxed to support the sending of military forces not in reality to protect the lives of either those capitalists or their friends, but to protect their property and their capital and their means of exploitation. When the people of this country get to know the real facts of the situation in China the party opposite will be treated in exactly
the same manner as they were treated when they proposed to introduce Chinese labour into the mines of South Africa.
I said, when the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs. Philipson) interjected her remark, that in all probability we should not have sent military forces to China had there been no property to defend. Property is always more sacred than human life to the party opposite. If they wanted to take British residents out of conditions in which their lives are in danger, they would remove the millions who are submerged in the slums of Britain. There are hundreds of opportunities at home for saving in one day more British human lives than there are in China altogether. We have had evidence from themselves as to what they would do if there was no property at stake. There was civil trouble recently in Nicaragua. Did the Government send military forces to protect the lives of the 200 British residents who were situated in that part of the world? Not a bit of it. They sent a gunboat to Nicaragua to bring the 200 British residents home. They did in Nicaragua exactly what we are advocating should be done in China. When we propose to do it in China they sneer at us, and the difference in their attitude towards the two problems, which are identical in their nature, is merely that there was no property at stake in Nicaragua, and there is £300,000,000 of British capital at stake in China. But why should they venture to bring this country to the verge of war even to preserve £.300,000,000 of British capital. £300,000,000 is the annual amount that we pay in this country in interest charges on our National Debt incurred during the War. If we were to insure the British capitalists in China against any loss to the capital invested there and the whole insurance claim had to be met, it would only mean that in Britain we should continue to pay for one year longer the £300,000,000 which is now being extracted from our people. mainly by the friends of the party who sit on the opposite benches.
We are also told the prestige of the country would be lowered if we adopted a policy of scuttle. Has not the prestige of Britain been lowered day by day since you began to toy with this deplorable situation? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what led to the hostility of France towards our attitude in
China, and will explain what points in the British Note were so objectionable to America and Japan that they refused to sign it. We were told for weeks that agreement had been reached between these three Powers at least. We were told that terms of cordiality existed between our representative and the French, and now we are told, when the situation is becoming ever more critical, that we are to be prepared to act on our own, because we have not a friend among the great nations of the world. Can our prestige be lowered any further than it has been by the right hon. Gentleman?
I would put this to the House. We have been advising our nationals to evacuate their positions in the interior of China. We have brought them to the coast. Is there any greater loss of prestige to be incurred by taking them absolutely out of danger than there is by bringing them from the interior to the treaty ports in which they are now? Is it going to be argued that regard in the world for Britain has sunk so low that our rivals would think we were a Power of no consequence because we had done an obviously sensible thing in our treatment of such a powerless nation as China? Would there be any loss of prestige possible in our dealings with China? Would anyone believe that we were afraid of China? Would it not have been a great and noble act, would it not have been one likely to penetrate into the innermost hearts of these kindly people—[Interruption.] Will anyone rise on the Front Bench and state, on the authority of the Government, that they are not a kindly people? They are the most peacefully disposed people on the face of the earth. They would never quarrel with us if there was a reasonable opportunity of living with us at peace. It is because they are a peaceful people that we are in China. Had they been a warlike people we should never have settled there in 1842. Had they been a warlike people they would have bundled us bag and baggage out of China many years ago. The fact of our being in China is the very best evidence that you are dealing with a peaceful, loving and kindly people.
Would it not have been a good, sound national policy for the right hon. Gentleman to say "You have awakened to a sense of your national importance. We
are going to withdraw our troops from China. We are going to shake hands with you and part as friends. Instead of asking you to negotiate treaties with our hands on your throat and demanding terms before we will surrender our ports, we now propose to meet you on equal terms and negotiate treaties which will enable us to live in harmony and for our mutual benefit in the years that are to be. "But the party opposite are so incensed with the hatred of the very word "Bolshevist" that they cannot restrain themselves from their madness in even the most delicate situation. The real menace to-day to the lives of British residents at home and abroad is the party who are setting themselves up as the enemies of liberty in every part of the world. We are asked to believe seriously that the people who employ labour for 12 hours at 10d. a day can be possibly better than any Bolshevist Government that could be established in China. Would not anything be an improvement for the working-classes of China on the present situation. Is not their first interest to get rid of the people who are keeping them in economic oppression, and should not we as people who pride ourselves in having done something for the promotion of freedom in this world have held out the right hand of friendship to a population that is one-fourth of the population of the world who are after hundreds of years about to shake off the chains of economic slavery? I hope even at this hour the right hon. Gentleman will change his attitude to China, and I sincerely hope that in the interest of our own country if he does not change his attitude the country will change its Foreign Secretary.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) on two occasions during the course of his speech attempted to persuade himself that he had a grievance because I had not intervened earlier in the Debate. The House will now perhaps understand why I waited for the Debate to develop. There are two parties on the benches opposite, one which is represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) who opened the Debate from the Front Bench and one which is represented by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and who has withdrawn the light of his countenance from the
Front Bench even before he withdrew it from the Foreign Secretary. I was anxious, as the Government intended only to put up one speaker, that that school of thought which, until the right hon. Gentleman rose, had been represented only by the interruptions of others, should itself provide a spokesman and let us know what their policy is. We have had it quite clearly from the light hon. Gentleman. His interpretation of the facts is peculiar. His remedy is equally peculiar. He suggests that there would be a parallel between the Chinese occupation of a part of the City of Glasgow and the international concession at Shanghai. The whole City of Shanghai was created by the foreigner.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if God had nothing to do with it?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman's observation is rather ribald. When we talk of the creation of a city we mean what men have done in it, and I say that all the creation of the city of Shanghai was done by the foreigner, and that it exists and prospers because of the foreigner. Why do we have these Concessions at all? Why do we talk of Treaty Ports? Because there is no equality of treatment at the present day between Chinese in England and British citizens in China. Chinamen can come here and settle in any part of our country and can be assured of justice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. It is not worth interrupting me, because at present, with the million of unemployed, we have special restrictions on aliens. Chinese have been settled here, and are settled in our great towns, and enjoy the freedom and justice which we enjoy. They can move freely about our country and can own property. No foreigner can own property in China outside the special concessions or places set apart for foreign residence, and there is no equality for us, any more than there is for the Chinese under the present system. I am not going to take up time in answering the right hon. Gentleman's talk on factory conditions in China. He does not pause to say whether he knows anything of the comparative conditions in Chinese and British-owned factories. He would lead you to think that he supposed the former to be better. He will have a
White Paper laid in a few days, and I commend it to his study, and let him then see how much of the case he tries to make against his own countrymen is justified. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of conditions existing in China. What is his remedy? We are there in pursuance of treaties. We are there ready to negotiate,, as circumstances make it possible, to meet Chinese national aspirations and to remove the special conditions which were rendered necessary by past Chinese history, as soon as China can protect the foreigner within its gates and give him the kind of justice and the same security for life, and, I add, for property, as the Chinaman can obtain here, or as we can obtain in any civilised country. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Abandon your treaty position; bring all your nationals away. Pay, if you like, for the property which has been looted and destroyed. Turn your back on China." That is the way to secure the affection and respect of the Chinese and to raise the prestige of Great Britain throughout the world. The party opposite speak with two voices. HoN. MEMBERS: "No!"] No. There are wiser voices than that to be heard in the ranks of the party in front of me.
Nothing can justify our authorities if they simply walk away from settlements which past Chinese Governments have allowed us to control and where our people have taken up their abode under a security which they believed the Treaty gave them. We must have an agreement by Treaty and negotiations. Ordinary precautions for safety must be taken.
That is a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. That is not what the right hon. Member for Shettleston, who has removed himself to the back bench, says. He did not say that. He did not say that nothing would justify our authorities if they simply walked away. He recommended that we should clear out all our people and walk away at once. He did not talk about settlement by agreement, or say that ordinary precautions must be taken in the meantime. He advised the abandonment of the whole position, unconditionally. The Leader of the Opposition wrote more than I have quoted. I am sorry that I cannot quote the whole of his argument. I am not quoting it to criticise it. He said:
It is good neither for China nor for us that the liquidation should be done by riotous crowds.
But that is what the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said He said, "Let these riotous crowds have their way."[HON. MEMBERS:"NO!"]"And evacuate all your citizens if you can. "The Leader of the Opposition said:
It is good neither for China nor for us that the liquidation should be done by riotous crowds; if it is, conflict is as inevitable as to-morrow's sunrise and we shall not be to blame.
I take the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the policy of the Government, and I reject the judgment on our policy of the right hon. Member for Shettleston. The character of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and his constant references to peaceful proceedings with the people with whom we have to deal forces me to ask myself whether he or those who cheer him have any conception of what has been going on in China. I have already given a pretty complete account of recent events at Nanking, partly derived from the British Consul-General and partly derived from American and Japanese reports. I have a further report from the British Vice-Consul, which has been seen and approved by the British Consul-General. He says:
Apart from a few minor incidents the Northern Troops had left the city peacefully on Wednesday night, 23rd March. Early on Thursday morning troops belonging to the 4th Division of the 6th Army under General Cheng Chien, mainly Hunanese, entered the suburbs of the city in uniform. The 'British Consulate was surrounded by 9 a.m. and the Consul-General was deliberately attacked—
I think the word is attacked, but it is not clear—
in the Consulate grounds by one of the two sentries posted by the looters. He hid for a time in the office with Mrs. Giles, two other ladies and other men but they were soon discovered and robbed of their valuables by successive bands of looters who became increasingly truculent and forced the party to leave the office. They took refuge in. the gate-house, whence they were rescued, after further painful experiences, at half-past five on Friday afternoon by agents of the Swastika Society, the Chinese official Red Cross Society. The International Export Company's factory was attacked about 11 a.m. by looters with cries of 'Kill the foreigners', and the occupants and guards had to flee. Meanwhile, the United States Consul had left his Consulate also in the hands of the looters and made his way with great difficulty with a party to the Standard
Oil Company's hill, where a large number of foreigners were assembled.
There the attacks of the soldiers became so persistent and heavy that the United States Consul decided, about half-past three, to signal for the help of the naval guns, which the senior naval officer had previously informed him were ready to open fire in the last resort. The shelling of the ground round the hill caused the attackers to retire and the refugees escaped over the city wall. The other main body of foreigners were collected at Nanking University and they. likewise, were stripped of their valuables and even of their clothes, and were eventually got away by the efforts of the Swastika Society who were delegated by military authorities to take action firstly as a result of the naval bombardment and, secondly, of the threat of its renewal. This society remained in touch with the United States Consul from about 6 p.m. on Thursday until the next evening.
The Japanese Consulate was looted, the Consul himself shot at as he lay in bed, whence he escaped with difficulty. As far as can be ascertained practically all foreign property has been lcoted or wantonly destroyed. At first particular attention was paid to British property. Two British subjects were killed in the Consulate and one seaman as well as one Frenchman, one Italian priest and one American citizen. The looters were nearly all from Hunan, as is established by many people, particularly Americans, who spoke to them before they became too violent. The extent to which they were organised is difficult to define; there was no question of their being out of hand. They answered whistle calls and they appeared to assemble at various points when bugles sounded during the naval firing. Officers, of whom there were a few about. made no attempt to interfere. Every refugee who was present is convinced from the demeanour of the looters that the whole affair was planned in advance, though actual proof is elusive. The looters told many Chinese in foreign employment that Chinese need not be afraid, as only foreigners were to be attacked. I have been informed today by my writer that looting is still going on in many of the Vice-Consul's residences without any attempt at protection by the authorities.
That telegram was sent on the 30th March.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Read what happened at Peking.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If there could have been any possible doubt as to the complicity of the Nationalist troops on the day on which the outrages were committed that doubt is completely dissipated by subsequent events. Although there can be now no question of the presence of any Northern troops in Nanking, and no doubt that that city is
wholly under the control of the Nationalists, the Consul-General reports as recently as 4th April that looting continues unchecked, all foreign houses now having been gutted except those of the Postal Commissioner and postal authorities. The Consulates, residences and offices arc being visited daily by bands of armed soldiers, who are now removing fixtures, such as electric fans, etc. At the residence of the Asiatic Petroleum Company's manager, window frames and brass fittings are still being removed. No attempt whatever is being made to restrain the looting. What is more, the officer in charge of the Nationalist troops sent a warning that any British coming on shore would be promptly shot. Anti-British posters have been put up in the city, and British ships have been fired on from the water front. But Nanking docs not stand alone. The same state of affairs obtains at Chinkiang, which had to be evacuated on account of demonstrations and agitations. On the night of 3rd April all foreign buildings in the concession were occupied by Nationalist troops, who had just arrived from Nanking, and the following morning the troops commenced looting inside the houses and even breaking open packing cases. This followed immediately upon the posting up in the concession of proclamations promising full protection of foreign life and property.
Further evidence of the complicity of Nationalist troops in anti-foreign outrages is furnished by a report I have just received from Kiukiang, which establishes that the looting which took place when the concession there was occupied by the Chinese in January last, was carried out in an organised manner by troops of the Nationalist Sixth Army. That there was no personal outrages there was only due to the fact that precaution had been taken in time.
I am sorry to trouble the House with all these details, but it is necessary that I should, at least, endeavour to give hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who criticise the policy which we have adopted some idea of what life is in China at the present time. A similar state of affairs has arisen, in greater or less degree, in every place which has come under the control of the Nationalists. The following are a few examples: The premises of the Wesleyan
Mission at Liuyang, some 50 miles to the east of Changsha, were broken into and their contents destroyed by a rabble of students and rowdies. The members of the mission were eventually hounded out of the place, and a jeering horde pursued them by the light of lanterns and with threats of violence down to the river, by which they left. His Majesty's Consul at Ichang, which has been occupied by the 8th, 9th and 10th Nationalist Armies, reports the occurrence there of almost daily offences against foreign property and the constant subjection of British subjects to calculated discourtesies, humiliations, impertinences and insults without possibility of redress, such conduct being previously quite unknown locally. The Chinese soldiers at Ichang, according to the Consul's report, invaded foreign property at their will and pleasure; they took no notice of remonstrances and cursed any foreigner who interfered with them, explaining that as the Chinese had taken the Hankow Concession, they had a perfect right to go where they liked on foreign property.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Like a students' rag day?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: What interest does the hon. Member think he is serving by minimising the gravity of these outrages? What interest of peace can be served by conduct of that kind?

Mr. WALLHEAD: The point I want to put is this, that nothing I have heard yet would justify a war that may lead to more catastrophe.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member had better hear some more. The attack on the Church Missionary Society's Hospital at Hangchow has already received attention in this House. The full report now received states that the attack was accompanied by the usual indignities practised on the Chinese doctors who were left in charge at the hospital, and whose only offence was that they should help their countrymen with the aid of foreign doctors. One of the senior Chinese doctors was seized and bound and marched through the streets with a placard on him to the effect that he was a "running dog" of the foreigners, and another doctor was paraded around the hospital and through the wards in the same way. The report
on the incident says that the animosities aroused against the Hangchow hospital were so virulent that the labour unions would make, work there quite impossible. At Shasi, on 2nd April, a clash was caused by the confiscation of British goods, cases being burnt and the contents looted. At Hankow, on 3rd April, a very large meeting was held to welcome the head of the Labour Bureau from Changsha at which the speakers were Russian and the slogans were "Down with Chiang Kai-shek" and" Kill all foreigners."
We overlooked the enormity of the offences committed, we negotiated the surrender of the concession at Hankow where protection was promised. It would be a mistake to suppose that these attacks are confined to British subjects and British interests, as some hon. Members seem gladly to think. There was a time when the campaign of hostility was concentrated upon ourselves and when attacks on other foreigners were the exception. The situation has now changed and the forces which the agitators have aroused are directed against foreigners indiscriminately. During the past few months agitation and attacks have been more and more directed against foreigners in general. At Nanking the United States and Japanese consulates suffered like our own, and not only British subjects, but United States and Japanese subjects were shot down as well as French and Italian subjects.
A serious anti-Japanese outburst occurred at Hankow on 3rd April, when Japanese sailors fired machine guns and there were both Chinese and Japanese casualties. Several Japanese properties have been burnt. The Japanese have maintained their landing party in the concession. American interests have not escaped. For example, a strike of students combined with agitators has led to the closing of a well-known American educational institution at Changsha called "Yale in China." This is typical of what is occurring in many places in Nationalist hands. That this is not a new departure on the part of the Nationalists is shown by events which took place in Wuchow about a year ago. Here the Stout Memorial Hospital, an American institution, was compelled to close and the whole of the American staff
was forced to evacuate owing to the inability or unwillingness of the Chinese authorities to afford them any protection against the attacks of anti-foreign agitators. The report of the head of this hospital is that after a strike it became necessary for the missionaries to leave. He says that a "close guard was placed about the hospital and no Chinese was allowed to enter. No help could be obtained for any purpose. The removal of baggage and effects was a problem. The foreigners were allowed to go in and out without being actually stopped. Each time we went outside the gate, our lives were in danger."

An HON. MEMBER: How long was this ago?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As long as a year ago. The head of the hospital also says, "We heard such expressions as kill the foreigners,' 'down with the Imperialists,' 'China for the Chinese,' 'take back the hospital property,' 'kill all the Christians.'" Do hon. Members cheer that? [Interruption.] I have read enough.[Interruption.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about Peking?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am dealing with outrages conducted in the territory which the Nationalist Government control. There was a further typical case at Foochow, where the Spanish Mission was attacked and the nuns and priests forced to leave the city in disguise. I think perhaps the most significant thing about this Debate is that no Resolution was put down by the Opposition when they asked for it. On the last occasion that China was under discussion, they moved a Resolution from the Front Bench concluding with this sentence:
That this House accordingly calls for the immediate diversion and recall of the Forces on their way to China.
Would the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition renew that demand to-day? Would he expose the population of Shanghai to the dangers which were realised at Nanking, and to which, from the statement I have made, it can be seen foreigners everywhere where the Nationalist Government is in control are at present exposed. No British Government could take that responsibility or refuse to do its best to
protect its nationals in the just enjoyment of their rights. We have no interests in China except to live on terms of peace and friendship with the Chinese people, and the great mass of the Chinese people have no other interest than to live on terms of peace and friendship with us, and I am sure would be glad to do so if they were allowed. But in face of a Government which either cannot control or will not control its troops, which either cannot protect foreigners within their gates or will not protect the foreigner, we must take such precautions as we can for the protection of our own people pursuing their lawful vocations.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this is a primary duty which we must discharge, and to enable us to discharge it we have thought it necessary to send the further reinforcements to which he has alluded. This is a duty which we must discharge, but it is not and cannot be the whole of our policy. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Do not let it be said, when all this is over, that the British led in everything of a military character." The right hon. Gentleman appeals to me to remove the suspicion from the minds of the Chinese. Will he help me a little more? Can he secure, if not the help, at least the abstention from hindrance from those who sit behind him? Why does the right hon. Gentleman think we ought to be suspect or are oper to suspicion. We have taken a lead in our effort to negotiate; we have taken a lead in a declaration of the most liberal policy that has ever been put before the Chinese people. We have shown in spite of provocation that we earnestly sought to settle these difficult questions in a friendly spirit, to recognise and admit all that is legitimate in Chinese national aspirations and to lay broad and firm the foundations of future peaceful relations with the Chinese people. But, Sir, how can you make agreements with people who do not or cannot execute the terms? How can I negotiate with the Cantonese Government in face of the outrages at Nanking; in face of the failure to give protection at Hankow; in fact of the failure to give protection at any one of the other places I have named, or do anything to stop this anti-foreign propaganda and prevent the cry of "Kill the Christians and kill the foreigner"?
We must have a knowledge that there exists in China an authority which not only undertakes the protection of life but is in a position to do so, and exercises its powers, before we can run any further risk with the lives and interests of our own people. Our policy remains the same. I said so the other day. I repeat it. Our policy remains the same. I recognise that the old Treaties are out of date. I recognise that we must move forward to a new system. But the Chinese must move too, and concurrently. Before we can carry this policy further we must know what is to be the attitude of the responsible Chinese authorities as regards the outrages that have been committed at Nanking. I said that I would give the House all the information it was possible for me to give on this subject in the course of the statement I was going to make in the Debate, and I warned the House that the information was very meagre. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) rubbed his hands with pleasure as he inquired how it was that we had made an enemy of France, that we had inspired Japan with nothing but distrust and rendered the Americans cold and hostile and suspicious.

Mr. TAYLOR: Rubbed his hands? His hands were in his pockets, really.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe all the powers named to be in substantial agreement, if not actually in complete verbal agreement, not merely that it is necessary to require redress for these outrages, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said,, but agreed as to the terms in which that redress should be demanded. But I cannot make a statement on that subject until an agreement is finally reached and until publication is possible in the different countries concerned, at whatever date is agreed upon among them. I do not want to speak too confidently. I know that agreement has been reached amongst the Ministers in Peking, but it was an agreement as to the recommendations to be made to their Governments. I am not absolutely certain as to the complete measure of agreement or the numbers of Powers who may agree at the present time, but all my indications are that at any rate Japan, the United States and ourselves will probably be in agreement
not merely to ask for reparation but as to the reparations which should be asked.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true, as reported in some of the newspapers this morning, that the Notes were actually to be presented to-day?

7.0 p.m.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that can be true, and I take no responsibility for any statement in the newspapers as to the terms of the Note. I have seen statements, but they have no authority either from me or from my office. I do not think it can be true. It may well be a day or two before these demands will be presented. I trust that the authorities of the National Govern ment will recognise their responsibility; that they will understand that their reputation as a Government, and that the interests of China and the honour of China require that they should give full satisfaction and reparation as much as we require to demand it. It is only if they recognise the ordinary obligations of a Government, and it is only if they will behave as any other Government would if by chance such an outrage occurred, that we can pursue that policy which was indicated in my Memorandum of December and which was amplified in my Memorandum of February and which is the groundwork on which we hope to build our future relations with China. And now I appeal once again and most earnestly to hon. Gentlemen opposite—

Mr. MACKINDER: And to Swindon.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: —not to make our difficult task more difficult, not to increase the risks and perils with which this dangerous situation is fraught. I do not know that any Government ever had exactly a comparable problem to deal with. I am sure they never had a more difficult one. It might be difficult to settle all these matters satisfactorily with a strong Chinese Government that possessed authority throughout all China. We have been attempting to find a friendly solution when there is no such Government, when there is one authority exercising power in the North, another authority exercising power in the South, and when every conversation which you have with one of them is a cause of suspicion and jealousy with the other, and
any concession you make to one of them is distasteful to the ether, who would prefer you made no concession rather than make it to the side to which it is opposed. We are doing that, as the Leader of the Opposition said, in the midst of a revolution, in the midst of civil war, with armies marching and counter-marching, and, whatever may be said of the mass of the Chinese people, they are peaceful. Chinese armies have a bad reputation as looters and as a terror among the population over whom they trample.

Mr. BROMLEY: They are only the same as all victorious armies.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the reputation of the British Army. Even 100 years ago the reputation of the British Army in the Peninsula was good. What good does the hon. Gentleman think he does by trying to blacken our troops? Does he make the case of his Chinese clients any better? Is it any defence for their action? He cannot help their case, but he takes a delight in blackening the faces of his own countrymen.

Mr. BROMLEY: I would request the right hon. Gentleman very respectfully to withdraw the suggestion made with regard to myself. I, possibly unwisely and without rising, interjected, "Was not looting and disorder the natural possession of all victorious armies? I said nothing of the British Army. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the suggestion, because this browbeating is not going to cow us.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood the hon. Gentleman to include the British Army in his charge. [An HON. MEMBER: "So he did!"] I did not think that in the words which he used he said "all victorious armies." I thought he said all armies, but even if I had caught the words "victorious armies" I should not have supposed that he specifically intended to exclude the British Army. Since he did, though his language was ill-chosen for the purpose, I withdraw the comment I was making, and I withdraw it the more gladly because I am sorry that what I intended to be an appeal should have become, through my misunderstanding or his mal-expression, an altercation.

Mr. MACKINDER: Speak to the hon. Member for Swindon.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) is unable to restrain himself, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I was trying to bring home to hon. Gentlemen opposite the peril of their countrymen and the difficulties and dangers of their situation, and to urge that, instead of feeding all the suspicions which have started from other sources and spread among the Chinese, they should help us to make our policy of friendship clear to the Chinese, and use whatever influence they have to prevent these attacks, and to let it be known that there will be no more sympathy there than anywhere else in the country in these attacks on British lives and British interests. We will pursue, if we can and when we can, our policy of conciliation. We will pursue, as and when we can, the policy of the adjustment of the old treaty position to the new aspirations and new conditions, but we are not prepared to be hustled out of China, to withdraw all our nationals from Shanghai as well as from up-country places, whence we have indeed, under this pressure, been forced already to withdraw them. We are not prepared to be treated as if we had no right to what is our treaty right, and as if the lives of our people were of no account to our Government.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have only a few sentences to utter in this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, as I understand,' is engaged in very difficult negotiations with other Powers, whose nationals were, more or less, placed in the same position as our's during the attack on Nanking. I quite understand that any discussion at the present moment of the character of the Note of the negotiations which are pending would embarrass him. That is the last thing my hon. Friends and myself wish to do. He has an exceedingly dim-cult task. The whole of the task which he has undertaken, I think, with very great courage in China is one of the most difficult that has ever fallen on the shoulders of a Foreign Secretary. I shall certainly not be willing, nor will my, hon. Friends, to utter a single sentence which would add to his difficulties. I should have preferred had this Debate taken place a little later. It would have been much better. It is too late, I think, to discuss the terms of
the Note, and it is too soon to discuss the action upon the Note and the reply. It would have been better, possibly, next week, when there will be another opportunity, or if the Foreign Secretary is not ready next week, later on, because I cannot imagine any action being taken, and I hope no action will be necessary, until the House has another opportunity of discussing it. I cannot see that controversy at the present moment will assist in the object which the Foreign Secretary and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have in mind, and that is a peaceful settlement. The right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance once more that he adheres to the policy laid down specifically in the Memorandum issued two or three months ago. I have confidence that he means it, and that he will pursue that policy, and, in that confidence, I do not propose to add a single word which will embarrass him in his difficult task.

Mr. TREVELYAN: The question which I am certain is a dominant one on this side of the House at the back of our minds, beyond anything else, is, "Is there going to be war? If so, how will it come and why should it be?" The right hon. Gentleman expressed his view that if the situation had been as it is now in China the Motion made from these benches would not have been moved protesting against the great expedition to Shanghai. What we said when we made that Motion was that it would create the kind of situation which now exists in China, and we were right. Everything that we expected has occurred. The Chinese were angry enough, and they are now more furiously exasperated. There is greater danger to all who are not behind the wire entanglements at Shanghai. It is exactly as we said it would be. Our Government finds that it has not got the other Powers acting with it. There is danger of war with the Cantonese, and, as a sequel of that, the House must remember that our trade with China stands in jeopardy not only of decreasing but of absolutely disappearing altogether. These are the things we were afraid of and these things are the things that have come to pass as we said they would if we exasperated the Chinese.
Take the events of Nanking. Our nationals are far away from the
protection of Shanghai. Very deplorable events occurred. But we do not know the truth of those events. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary carefully abstained from replying to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who had stated, as a reasonable policy for our country to pursue in a situation like this, which is liable to lead to war and where there are very materially different statements of fact from various quarters, that there should be an inquiry. What more reasonable suggestion could be made? Here you have three versions; you have the British official version, the version of Chiang Kai-shek and the version of Mr. Chen. They differ materially as to what soldiers were primarily guilty and as to how many Chinese were killed during the operations at Nanking. I do not suppose that anyone in the House definitely disbelieved the British account, but it does not tally with Mr. Chen's account, and, as my right hon. Friend said, in so far as we have had any experience or have been told of any experience of Mr. Chen, we can rely on his word. We can rely on this, that at any rate it is the opinion of the Cantonese Government, expressed through Mr. Chen, that the responsibility to a great extent for the disaster is due to the Northern troops and that many Chinamen were killed during the operations.
There is no reason for us to say that Mr. Chen is right and that the information given to the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. What we do say is that it would be an ugly business for us if we found that we had not got hold of the whole truth after we had gone to war, or as my right hon. Friend says, even if less happens, after we are enforcing our claims by whatever methods we choose to adopt. In this matter the House might adopt a little sense of proportion. What has happened at Nanking is deplorable. So are many things that happen in war. Really, although my hon. Friend on this side just now may have interrupted somewhat injudiciously, yet who denies that it is true that one of the things that does happen in war is that some victorious armies get out of hand and loot and destroy right and left? After all, this is not the first looting that there has been in China. A few years
ago a composite army of practically all the civilised nations in Europe looted Peking. Therefore I say, do let us have a little sense of proportion. Here is civil war going on in China. Here is admitted revolution going on. I read of a good way of putting it the other day in an article by Mr. Ransome:
You cannot have a revolution without breaking windows. Our duty is to keep out of the way of the falling glass.
What is the situation? It is quite true that these deplorable things have happened but, I say, again, let us have a sense of proportion. Since 1st January one Englishman has been killed at Shanghai, and three Englishmen have been killed at Nanking. It is deplorable, but it is hardly sufficient reason for the illimitable disaster of war as a response. While the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was speaking I felt a certain amount of sympathy with him. He was talking about the Labour party having two policies. The right hon. Gentleman himself has two policies, and that is his difficulty. We have expressed our approval of the Christmas manifesto of the Foreign Secretary. It was the first step in the right and necessary direction. What we complain of is that he spoils his policy. He makes it practically impossible to carry out that policy by the other part of his policy which he is now trying to justify, namely, the regime of force. We realise that as a nation we have to deal with a new situation, and, in spite of all that is happening now in China, with a hopeful situation in China. The hopefulness of it consists of this, that there is now at last a Government which has control of more than half China, a Government which is to a great extent a representative Government, a Government with whom we can deal, with whom we have dealt, and with whom we ought to go on dealing, and not a Government merely of brigands.
How does the South make its advances? I do not know how much fighting ft does, but what happens is that the whole population swings over to its side. It is a Government which is getting into its hands the whole of the good will and support of the Chinese people. We ought to put ourselves on terms with that Government. The future lies with them. If not, what is the prospect? Nobody
supposes that the present British Government wants war. It knows what would happen to it if there were war. Of course it does not want war. But governments drift and drift and drift into war, and if you send out armies of 30,000 or 40,000 into a country and tell them to sit there, for how long are they to remain? For weeks, for months, and for years? Why should you bring them back 10 years hence? What is the policy? You have not got one. The Government do not know how they are going to get out of the difficulty in which they are. But the guns may begin to go off. Put aside the national disaster of the fighting of the two peoples. What is going to happen to our trade? Where is it going if there is war? Let the House keep in mind certain facts of the situation as we see them at this moment. The other nations are not helping us very vigorously in our policy of force. It is pretty well known that the Americans and the Japanese do not like this policy. The French openly and expressly and officially dislike it. They are none of them prepared to help us in our course of violence. What is to happen? They are waiting for our trade. I do not say that that is their motive—far from it—but they know that that is what will result from it. This was amply exemplified last year when, as a result of the Shanghai and the Shameen shootings, Hong Kong trade was boycotted. What was the result? Disaster to Hong Kong. "The Times" told us that the value of property had gone down by £100,000,000. With the assistance of the Government they had to borrow £3,000,000. Our carrying trade fell from its supremacy to almost exactly the position of the improved Japanese carrying trade. Our export trade to China fell while the Japanese trade rose, and rose to an extent corresponding almost exactly with our loss.
I do not know how far, since the boycott has disappeared, the Hong Kong trade has recovered. It may have recovered. My point is that now you have the Southerners in occupation of the Yangtse. We are beginning to be told that there is no trade on the Yangtse even now. Of course there is not. If you have incidents like Wanhsien and like the coming of this great force of ours to Shanghai, if you exasperate the
Chinese to that extent, what is to become of our general trade, which is even more important to us on the Yangtse than in the rest of China? What folly it is! The Cantonese are quite open about it. Even the Communists in the Kuomintang agree absolutely that they do not want to drive out the foreigners by violence?. They have said so in the most explicit way in the last few weeks. What they say it is worth the while of a great industrial nation that lives on its foreign trade to listen to. The Nationalist Finance Minister said:
It looks as though foreigners had a sufficient force here for defence against the whole of the Chinese Army, but a foreign force, regardless of its size, is futile, because foreigners cannot force Chinese to trade with them.
He also said that
The foreign forces were erecting a brick wall and shutting out foreigners from Chinese customers.
There is our prospect as an industrial nation. That is one of the reasons why we do not want to fight. The main reason is that it is totally unnecessary. It is unnecessary, because we have started as a nation on the right course, which could free us from all our difficulties. If only the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would go on in that course, if only he would leave the advice of the fire-eaters who have induced him to send out these troops, if be would leave that advice and listen to the voice of reason, our troubles might soon be at an end.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I concur with the last speaker and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mir. Wheatley) in the statement that the Chinese are a peaceable folk. They have always been so. They have always overwhelmed invaders by vast numbers, but not by their warlike disposition. Therefore, I do not anticipate any of the consequences which the last speaker has foreshadowed. I do not think that anything in the nature of war is likely to arise between the forces which have been sent out there and the Cantonese or any other army in China. There is no real fighting among the Chinese, even when there is a revolution. Gentlemen who go out to war with umbrellas to put up when it rains, cannot be said to be engaged in serious conflict. But the Chinese are so peaceable that they
Cannot even defend themselves when bands of brigands get among them. It is quite a common thing for some Chinaman to get hold of some arms, to arm a few troops and then to proclaim himself the war lord of a district. He then proceeds to collect a levy from all the surrounding people—I do not know whether he calls it a political levy or not. Very often he disappears into British or other neutral territory with the money which he has collected and, perhaps, sells his leadership to some other war lord. The average Chinaman pays as much as he can, but never seriously resists, because he is, as has been said, the most peaceable mortal that ever was. He is also one of the most industrious of mankind. You find him in Malaya and other places, thrifty and hardworking, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) talked about the small pay of 10d. a, day, he did not realise that China is a country where you can buy a chicken for 1d.

Mr. J. JONES: And buy a lawyer for 4d.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: That would be a large fee for a lawyer in China and 10d. a day there is really equivalent to a very large wage in purchasing value. There is no real danger. From the beginning of our history in China, in 1796 there has always been a certain anti - British feeling. Earl Macartney, then delegate from this country to the court of the Emperor, refused to make the nine obeisances known as the "kow tow" which the representatives of other nations did, and while there has always been, since then, an anti-British feeling there has also been respect for Britain.

Mr. JONES: You would make a good mandarin.

Mr. MACOUISTEN: I very nearly purchased a mandarin's coat when I was there recently. We got the concession in Hong Kong because the place was then a pestilential island and they thought nobody would ever inhabit it, but we have made a great town there with a fine harbour. That has all been done by British capital and enterprise. It is the entrepot for an enormous trade which brings a great deal of employment to people in this country. Again, Shanghai
was conceded to us when it was a mere swamp, but it is now a magnificent town and I was reminded of the Clyde when I sailed up the river there and saw the warehouses and the shipyards, all under British and other foreign supervision. There is one thing which I should like to say to those Gentlemen who talk so glibly on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston seemed to indicate that because some people there do not belong to his party or what he chooses to call his class-though I always understood that he himself was a capitalist—that they should therefore be deserted. It was tragic to see poor people coming on board—refugees from all parts of China—immense numbers of them being American missioners who were going away in the American boat. People may have their doubts as to the wisdom of endeavouring to change the Chinaman's religious views or to carry the Christian gospel into China, but nobody can doubt the bona fides of the attempt to do good work which these self-sacrificing people make. It is very tragic to see them fleeing from that country with their life-work more or less wrecked. That is because you have this anti-foreign propaganda among a certain large number of Chinese, not the mass of Chinese but the more or less brigand class who constitute their army.
China is looking, is searching eagerly, for a solid government. This is no new phase in Chinese history. If you go back on Chinese history as far as we know it you will discover various dynasties—the Ming dynasty, the Manchu dynasty, and others—have at different periods taken charge and exercised autocratic authority and that the Chinese inevitably rushed to pay their respects to the ruling dynasty. They are on the side of what they think is the strongest party because they want settled government. Canton has always been a city from which new things have proceeded. There have been uprisings there at all times and the Cantonese are in one sense the most intelligent of the Chinese people. We can only hope that they will manage to get a settled government of some kind in China. But that is no reason, when we have treaties made three or four generations ago, why we should throw away what we have gained and what the Chinese granted us in past generations.
We cannot turn back the hands of the clock. When the country is settled the Cantonese Government or whatever Government is finally set up may be glad to renew those treaties—perhaps with modifications—because it is essential to the Chinese as well as to ourselves that our trade should continue. It is necessary, however, above all things, that we should protect those people of all nationalities who are there. In the present state of China and with an army which is at present not sufficiently under discipline, I think the action of the Government in sending the necessary protection to British people has undoubtedly prevented one of the most horrible tragedies that could possibly have happened—a tragedy beside which the Indian Mutiny would have been a comparatively minor event. Nothing could have been worse than if the Government had failed in their duty to their own nationals. There is nothing provocative in what they have done and when settled government comes to China, as I trust it will very soon, I have no doubt that whatever Tower or Powers rule there will say that they are grateful to the British Government for taking this action to preserve our own nationals and the territory conceded to us. On that foundation we can build up renewed friendship and renew those trading relations which have gone on for nearly a century.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: The chief satisfaction which we got from the speech of the Foreign Secretary is that a joint Note and not an ultimatum is to be sent. During the last seven or eight days many of us have been exceedingly anxious because the tendency growing out of the Nankin outrages has been for the Government to strengthen the military side of its policy. We have had several of our news-papers pleading for satisfaction, for national honour, for the recovery of lost prestige and for a definite extension of military action. All the reports which we have had go to show that, if the British Government had received the cooperation of America and Japan, there would have been much more than a Note in the course of the next day or two. I think, therefore, we can say that the chief satisfaction to be derived from the Foreign Secretary's statement is that there is no fixing of a time limit, and there is no threat. A much softer kind
of statement and a much more accommodating statement is being despatched from this country. That only emphasises how great has been the danger in the last seven or eight days. With regard to the rest of the Foreign Secretary's speech, it would have been much more helpful if it had been directed to the "die-hard" section of his own party rather than to the Members of the Labour party. I have never heard in this House a more deplorable speech than that which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. M. Banks) made this afternoon or the one which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) in a Debate on China about a fortnight ago. Speeches of that kind make detinitely for war between China and Great Britain, and I regret that the Foreign Secretary did not, by word of mouth, single out the hon. Member for Swindon and some other Members of his own party and direct particular remarks to them rather than to this party.
The Foreign Secretary knows better than any men in this House that if ever the time comes when he wants backing in a peace policy, if ever he wants influence and authority in this country which will save him from war with China, he will find it chiefly among the representatives of Labour both in this House and in the country. We have witnessed during the last two months a gradual return to the military idea in the Press of this country. Two months ago we had the prospect of serious negotiations. The Labour party encouraged with all the strength in its power, not only in the House, but in its Press and at its public meetings, the method of negotiation. We have said over and over again that we want to see the Foreign Secretary develop the method of negotiation which he opened up in his. memorandum of Christmas last. No party in Opposition has ever done more deliberately to co-operate with and sympathise with and push forward the method of negotiation. Yet we have to record that two months later we see the military mind in the ascendant with the Government. The Foreign Secretary has said that the method of negotiation is definitely in abeyance and will only come into operation again, as and when circumstances permit—to
use his own words. It is a very deplorable confession to make at this time of day and in the long catalogue of deplorable crimes and outrages which have been committed I think we have an exhibition of the kind of temper which is going to make negotiations certainly with the Cantonese Government increasingly difficult. I have not heard a single word said by the Home Secretary condemning any crime committed in China except crimes said to be committed by those who are alleged to be either members of or connected with the Cantonese Government. It is always the Cantonese who are doing wrong and the indictment has been an anti-Cantonese indictment from beginning to end.
Everybody in. this House knows that there have been very many outrages committed by others than the Cantonese, and, therefore, I think we are warranted in drawing the conclusion that the Foreign Secretary's attitude towards the Chinese question is ex parte and is in effect a propaganda policy aiming at fomenting a definitely critical, suspicious, and hostile attitude towards the only party in China through whom we can ever hope to have improved relations with China as a whole. That attitude on the part of the Foreign Secretary is implemented over and over again by the responsible British Press. The "Times" correspondent in Shanghai day after day during the last fortnight has been advocating as the only solution of our present difficulties the extension of British military authority and power, even to the point of going beyond the territorial position which the Army has already assumed outside the limits of the Settlement, making a wide sweep, taking over a very large amount of Chinese territory, and building up a defensive base very considerably removed from the Settlement itself. The "Times" correspondent in Shangnai has been fomenting day after day, ever since this trouble began, an anti-Cantonese attitude of mind, and suggesting that the only solution of this problem is to build up a military power enough to teach the Cantonese a lesson. He has stated definitely that the assumption of the control of the whole of the Shanghai zone is urgently needed to relieve the present tension and that the imperatively required reinforcement to Peking and Tientsin would go a long way
towards the desired effect. That is to say, we are getting the men on the spot increasingly recommending a development of British military forces there, even to the extent of building up an aggressive policy on the mainland of China itself.
That kind of anti-Cantonese propaganda, developed by responsible correspondents and encouraged by the British Foreign Secretary, has become increasingly the characteristic of the Press opinion of this country and of the effort of His Majesty's Government as a contribution towards the solution of this problem, and I rise in order to protest against the general direction of all that propaganda. It is in spirit and in practice a frank departure from the solemn obligations into which we have entered not to take sides, not to identify ourselves either with the one party or with the other. On the contrary, we are putting ourselves into a frankly hostile relation to the one group that really can bring both China and ourselves into a condition of peace and of Anglo-Chinese co-operation. I notice, too, that the one Chinese general who has an effective force outside the Cantonese Government, namely, Chang Tso-lin, is developing an anti-Russian propaganda with intent to appeal to the foreign Powers, and that he pursues that propaganda in the Press of this country day by day, and is, in effect, inviting both Britain and the other Powers to come into active cooperation with him in order to drive out the Russian forces, according to his own argument, and thus build up another kind of government and authority. I am not suggesting that it is any part of the policy of His Majesty's Government to co-operate with that particular general, but I think it is of very great importance that the Chinese people themselves, and particularly the responsible Cantonese leaders, are very definitely of opinion that we are tacitly encouraging, in a variety of ways, cooperation with that side of the present military forces in China, and there again we have presumptive evidence of a departure from the principles of strict neutrality with regard to British policy in China.
I want to suggest that we have now reached a situation where, as my right
hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary said, the method of negotiation ought to be taken up again. I want the facts with regard to the Nanking outrages. I do not know what the facts are, but I will assume that the catalogue of events that was read out from the Table this afternoon and the statements made last week concerning the nature of those outrages are entirely true. I will assume that there is no possible criticism to be made of them as a statement of fact. It remains a fact, nevertheless, that very few people in China would ever accept that as a statement of fact, and that the responsible Foreign Secretary of the only effective Government that there is in China denies, and denies hotly, the truth of the statements made from that Box both to-day and last week. We cannot expect the Cantonese Government or the Chinese to base their policy on an ex parte statement made by this country. We cannot expect them to meet a claim that is made by this country. It is almost as if we should have expected the Belgians in 1914 to accept a statement of outrages made by the invading German Government and yield to terms on that. It is almost as if we should have accepted, from 1914 to 1918, any statement made by Germany concerning anything that happened either in Flanders or anywhere else in the war zone.
I want to ask, from the point of view of the best interests of this country, and, taking this statement as being a true statement, that we should at this stage invite the League of Nations, either by sending out a Commission from Geneva or by bringing the World Court into operation, to get at the facts of the situation—that we should invite their co-operation purely as a fact-finding agency. Would not that be of enormous help at this stage? Would it not be a very great help for further developments if we could associate, merely as a fact-finding agency, an impartial international authority of that kind? I want to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will not give consideration to that method. He said two months ago, in the admirable letter that he sent to Sir Eric Drummond at Geneva, that if ever a time should come when he could see his way to invite the action of the League of Nations to deal with the trouble in China, he would do so. I submit to him that in this limited sphere of
the Nanking outrages there is a great opportunity to invite their co-operation.
I should like to make one further appeal with regard to the question of the League of Nations, or some international authority growing out of the League, handling the wider issues in which we are involved. Two months ago the Foreign Secretary stated that there was not a case for the intervention of the League of Nations, that there was no authority on the Chinese side with which the League of Nations could deal. It is true that since then the Cantonese Government have taken control practically of the whole of the South of China, and they are a de facto Government throughout that area, and it is also true that the major portion of British interests are to be found in Southern China. I suggest that, under those circumstances, it should not be impossible for the League of Nations, either under Article XI, or Article XII, or Articles XIII, XIV, or XIX, to come in and co-operate as a fact-finding agency and as an organ for dealing with the outstanding troubles. I want to press the claim for the League of Nations to take a- really definite part.
I am convinced that if the Foreign Secretary would say to all the 53 or 54 associated Powers in the League: "We want Canton to come in and negotiate; we do not care which of the member States sends out the invitations, we do not care if a round robin is sent, but we want to convince the Cantonese that we are ready, through Geneva, to enter into negotiations"—if he would take that line of action, I am convinced that there are quite a number of Powers which do not want to do anything to hurt either Britain's interests or the interests of the League, which are waiting for some kind of lead from the right hon. Gentleman. I therefore ask him to take hold of the method of negotiations, by using some kind of international authority, either directly growing out of the League or a part of the League, in order that, first of all, the Nanking troubles may be brought nearer to a settlement on the basis of fact, and, secondly, that the League of Nations may have a chance of taking hold of the wider issues involved. In that way, perhaps, they may bring the time nearer when, instead of this growing anti-League attitude as well as anti-British attitude in China, we may have a chance, even
through the League, of doing what we cannot accomplish as an isolated Power.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: Nobody in the House certainly has a greater respect for the opinion and the sincerity of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith), who has just sat down, than I have myself, but be will excuse me for saying, I am sure, that when he talks about the one-sidedness of the Press campaign, his remarks come a little belated from the party whose organs have been responsible for so much misrepresentation in the other direction, and it is idle for him to talk about our not taking sides in this matter when coincidently a somewhat important organ published by a responsible Member of his own party came out only the other day with the most bitter misrepresentation of the attitude, not only of this country, but of the party which maintains the Government in office at the present time. It is very rarely that I find myself in any agreement with the right hon. Member far Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), but I found myself in agreement with him on one point at least this afternoon, and that was with his opening remark, when he said that he had not the faintest idea what we were discussing this afternoon or what was the purpose of the Debate. I have listened with comparative intelligence since a quarter to four with the object of elucidating that very point, and I am in the same oblivion—

Mr. J. JONES: You always were

Captain O'CONNOR: —as the right hon. Member was himself, and as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) says I always was, and undoubtedly, if I listen to him long enough, I always shall be. The fact is that there is absolutely nothing which we have got to discuss this afternoon. The question of policy was decided and decided contrary to the pretensions of hon. Members opposite a good deal of time ago. They have not discussed the only subject that was open to them to-day, which was the method of administration of that policy, and perhaps they will forgive me for comparing them to a moth which flutters around a candle flame. The fascination of the very matter that is going to destroy them is often sufficient, in the case of human beings, to bring them into very
8.0 p.m.
dangerous situations indeed. There is not the least doubt that little 8.0 p.m. incidents in the electoral his-of their party, like Leith, and like the by-election in NortE Southwark, have indicated to them with some clearness that their attitude towards China was not acceptable to the country, but in spite of that knowledge, as in the case of Ohester-le-Streefc, they are driven, like wretched moths, to flutter round the flame they know is going to destroy them.

Mr. WALLHEAD: You were at the bottom of the poll.

Captain O'CONNOR: The hon. Gentleman only reinforces my contention. He says that so unpopular was the Government that our candidate was at the bottom of the poll. That does not make his plight any better because, in spite of the unpopularity of the Government, his party is unable to make any headway against the obvious discredit which his leaders have brought upon it on account of their attitude on this question. But, in so far as anything at all has emerged this afternoon, we have heard two entirely contradictory and conflicting solutions of the Chinese problem. We have had the solution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston and we have had the anti-toxin to that solution from the mouth of his titular leader. They were entirely contradictory, as I have pointed out, and to that extent they cancel one another cut. But the most remarkable thing is this, that we, unfortunately, have no instrument by which we can record in this House the volume of noise or approval with which any particular sentiment is received, and, unless my ears misgave me, the solution which was advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston was received with precisely the same amount of approval as the solution advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the country is left to determine which of those two wholly inconsistent policies represents the policy of that great indeterminate, incohate body which calls itself the Labour party. It is absolutely impossible to attack either a sponge or a jelly fish. You press your finger in at one side and it comes out on the other. If you attack them on one line they say, "That is not our policy at all; our policy is just the opposite." The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of
the Opposition made out his case when this subject was debated in the House on the first occasion when troops were sent to China. He said then that those troops ought to be withdrawn because they were merely provocative, but after that he goes to Edinburgh or Glasgow, I am not sure which, and says that the gravamen of his charge against the Government was not that they were sending troops there, that he did not object to, but that their forces were not sufficiently mobile. He cannot have it both ways. Either one of those things is true or the other is true. If he thinks that we should despatch forces for the preservation of life in China, to that extent he is in accord with the Government, in which case he ought never to have advanced the proposal in this House with his responsibility that those troops should be diverted. It is one of the most remarkable coruscations of political mendacity that I have ever heard for that same right hon. Gentleman to go back to Edinburgh and say that what he really meant to say was that the forces that were sent out ought to have been more mobile.
But what has been suggested this afternoon? Let us take the suggestions at their face value. We have had it suggested that this matter should be referred to the League of Nations for arbitration, but I have not heard it suggested for one moment what is going to be referred to the League of Nations. Are we going to the League of Nations with the question whether we are going to permit our women to be raped, our harbour-masters to be murdered, our citizens to have their property destroyed? Are we going to refer the elementary rights of any civilised community to protect its nationals, wherever they may be in the world, to the League of Nations? I take the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone, and I ask him whether we are going to refer this question to the League of Nations in the absence of one of the parties? What parties are going to be heard by the League of Nations, because I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman himself would suggest that the Cantonese or the other body of people in China would be prepared or able to send anybody to represent their point of view to a tribunal appointed by the League of Nations.

Mr. R. SMITH: If 10 or 15 member States were to invite the representatives of Canton to come to Geneva or invite them to set up a body to represent them, I suggest that that might meet the case.

Captain O'CONNOR: What is going to be referred to Geneva? Is the hon. Gentleman going to refer the question of whether nationals are to be robbed of their property and murdered and raped in places like Nanking? If that is the burden to be placed upon the League of Nations, then no self-respecting nation will submit those elementary rights of its own to the jurisdiction of any international body. The hon. Member is really throwing a burden on that body which it is quite unable to bear.
The next suggestion is that we should negotiate. What are we to negotiate about and with whom are we to negotiate? Neither of those matters are clearly put before us. I am unaware at the present moment, of any emerging problem which requires negotiation. There is certainly no pressing problem at the moment that requires negotiation with anybody in China. At present the British Government Having committed itself to the protection of life in China, is engaged in securing that there should be an adequate force for carrying out the policy that has been ratified, not only in the House of Commons, but with equal unanimity right throughout the country. I do not want to detain the House to any greater lengths as. other hon. Members want to take some of the very slight amount of time left, but I would like to say just this. Useless and futile as these Debates on China have been, they have at any rate served one useful purpose. An Opposition can secure some appearance of cohesion by the very fact of opposition. There is a great deal in the Irishman's remark that he did not know what party he voted for but he was "agin the Government." So long as the hon. Gentlemen opposite have the opposition complex, they can present a kind of semblance of unity to the country, but periodically and, as time goes on, with greater frequency, 1 believe there will come a shaft of light occasionally which will display the rift that exists right throughout that august body, which will show their complete
incapacity for presenting any coherent front on any concrete problem, and to that extent these Debates on China have served a useful purpose in enlightening the country. There is one elementary duty which every Government which assumes opposition in this country must take. It is the duty which those in opposition have to face equally with those in power. It is the duty of protecting their nationals over the face of the globe, irrespective of class, creed, trade or anything else,, when carrying out their lawful avocations. The Opposition has shown with perfect clarity to the whole country that on that vital issue it is dis-united and would be unable to command a following if it formed a Government. If that be their attitude on that vital issue, they have no right to propose themselves as an alternative Government for controlling the destinies of an Imperial race.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and learned Gentleman has my sympathy in speaking against time, which is always very difficult. I gather from the last part of his speech that he wishes to form an alternative Opposition, and I wish him luck, if he is going to infuse a little ginger from his own back benches into the Government. But that is not what I rose to say. The case for the intervention of the League of Nations is just as strong now as the case for intervention was when Italy fell out with Greece over the murder of officers engaged in frontier invasion, and the supporters of the Government then advocated that that matter should be brought before the League of Nations. I regret intensely the loss of life at Nanking, but long before it happened I drew the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the only way I could do, by questions in this House, to the danger of our people at Wuhu, and to dangers of leaving our missionaries at Ningpo and elsewhere unprotected. The right hon. Gentleman is faced with an extraordinarily difficult situation. We have not been told what he is going to do, but I really rose to ask him whether he has anything to say as to what appears in the evening paper to-night in regard to affairs at Peking. I am quoting from the "Evening Standard" to-night, and
it appeared in the mid-day edition, and I presume that the right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly seen it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received no information up to the present time as to the events in Peking.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that, like the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Mac-quisten), I have been to Peking, and I know the Legation quarters there. It would be quite impossible for Chinese troops to enter the Russian Legation without the permission of the Corps Diplomatique. According to Reuter, the raid was made on the signed authorisation of the Diplomatic Corps. I began by regretting the happenings to our Consul and to our diplomatic representatives at Nanking. But it does not help foreigners for Chang Tso-lin in the north to outrage and to enter the diplomatic quarters of another Power. It does not help the position of foreigners as a whole in China. The right hon. Gentleman has told me that he has no knowledge of this matter. I propose to return to it to-morrow by means of a Private Notice Question. This means the beginning of very serious events indeed. If it is right for us to protest against the outrages against our nationals on their lawful occasions in Nanking, then we must also protest against the invasion of other foreigners quartered in Peking, and especially in the diplomatic buildings. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) cannot have it both ways. If it is wrong that our Consul should be robbed at Nanking, it is equally wrong that the Russian Embassy should be robbed in Peking. They are all foreigners on Chinese soil, and you must not have one policy for the north and another for the south. Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman has not got this information, and as he has given us very little information otherwise, I shall repeat my question to him on the first available opportunity.

Question put, "That this. House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 271.

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W, Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt, Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Jones, S. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, I. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Clowes, S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Oswald
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Alien Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Albery, Irving James
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Duckworth, John


Alien, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Caine, Gordon Hall
Eden, Captain Anthony


Applin. Colonel R. V. K.
Campbell, E. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Apsley, Lord
Cassele, J. D.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ellis, R. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
England, Colonel A.


Balfour, George (Hempstead)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Balniel, Lord
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Falie, Sir Bertram G.


Barclay Harvey, C. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Chapman, Sir S.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Forrest, W.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Clayton, G. C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bennett, A. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bethel, A.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Ganzonl, Sir John


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major William
Gates, Percy


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Couper, J. B.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Bowyor, Captain G. E. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Goff, Sir Park


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gower, Sir Robert


Briscoe, Richard George
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Brawn, Ernest (Leith)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Burman, J. B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)




Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hammersley, S. S.
Malone, Major P. B.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Skelton, A. N.


Harland, A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Meller, R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hartington, Marquess of
Merriman, F. B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Strauss, E. A.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hills, Major John Waller
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hilton, Cecil
Neville, R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Holland Sir Arthur
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Templeton, W. P.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Oakley, T.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hudson, Capt. A. O. M. (Hackney, N.)
Owen, Major G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Penny, Frederick George
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waddington, R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Perring, Sir William George
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Philipson, Mabel
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wells, S. R.


Kennedy, A, R. (Preston)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Preston, William
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wiggins, William Martin


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Radford, E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lamb, J. Q.
Raine, W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Livingstone, A. M.
Remnant, Sir James
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rentoul, G. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Loder, J. de V.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Looker, Herbert William
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lumley, L. R.
Ropner, Major L.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Salmon, Major I.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Maclntyre, Ian
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


McLean, Major A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.



Macmillan, Captain H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sandon, Lord
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain Margesson.


Macqulsten, F. A.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie



MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND FUEL PRICES.

Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to move
That this House, being of opinion that in many cases the prices charged for articles of food and fuel are unreasonably high, thus inflicting hardship upon consumers, regrets the failure of His Majesty's Government to take adequate measures to prevent profiteering in the supply of these necessities.
We have often heard expressions from Members of the Government to the effect that they were always anxious to maintain a reasonable standard of life on behalf of the people of this country, and not do anything that would have a tendency to depress the wages of the workers of this country. This Motion gives the Government a real opportunity of proving their sincerity in the statements they have made with regard to matters of that kind. In November, 1924, a Royal Commission on Food Prices was appointed, and their main recommendation was the establishment of a Food Council strongly representative of working-class consumers. They outlined the duties which such a Council ought to undertake. They said that they should examine and report upon prices and profits in the food trades, and assist in cooperation with the Board of Trade in the application to those trades of any general legislation regarding industrial combines. The Food Council has been set up, but. if has been given very limited powers. The Government have refused to confer statutory powers upon it. On 16th December, 1925, a question was put to the Prime Minister, and in reply he said:
I do not think that legislation would necessarily make the Food Council a more effective body, and I do not propose to introduce any such legislation until it is shown to be desirable."[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th December. 192,5, col. 1446, Vol. 189.]
To-night I shall try to show the President of the Board of Trade that it is desirable now, as a result of the experiences of the Food Council since it has been in operation. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that the Food Council fixed periods for milk prices in this country. They said that during the summer period the charge should be 6d. per quart, commencing on 1st April, and during the winter period 7d. per quart, commencing on 1st October. Subse-
quently they found that this arrangement was not being carried out by certain associations, and on 16th September last year the executive committee of the Food Council sent a letter to the Metropolitan and the Amalgamated Master Dairymen's Associations calling their attention to the fact that they were charging 7d. instead of 6d. during the summer period and asked them to state their reasons for so doing. The executive committee met on 28th September to consider the replies, decided that they were very unsatisfactory, and directed that a report embodying the views of the committee should be prepared for submission to the Food Council Here was a situation in which certain prices had been suggested by the Food Council and had been ignored. On 1st September the price of 7d.is charged instead of 6d., on 16th September the attention of these associations is called to the matter, and on 2'8th September the executive committee report to the Food Council that they are not satisfied; but because the Council has no power in the matter nothing is done.
Take the case of bread prices. Here again the Council endeavoured to set a standard for the price of bread. It fixed the standard grade of flour at 280 lb. to the sack, and suggested that when the price of flour was above 48s. a sack but not above 52s. the price of the 4 lb. loaf should not exceed 10d.; and that when flour was above 44s. but not above 48s. the 4 lb. loaf should not exceed 9½d. In the main this recommendation was carried out by firms throughout the country, but in 18 towns and cities local bakers' associations absolutely refused to put this scale into operation and took their own lines, and because the Food Council has no powers no action has been taken in the matter.
I read in the "Times" yesterday a report of the annual meeting of the Maypole Dairy Company. I would remark that this is another phase of the situation, and I am not suggesting that this company have ignored the orders of the Food Council. The Chairman of the company stated that 1926 had been a very difficult year for them, on account of the industrial stoppage and the consequent lack of purchasing power of the people, yet he was able to report that they had placed £10,000 to the reserve fund, in-
creasing it to £81,667, that the suspense reserve fund stood at £508,272, and—it is only fair to state that there was this one generous action at least on the part of this company—that they had also placed £10,000 to the provident fund. In spite of having done all this, and in spite of the fact that it was a very bad year, they were able to pay their shareholders a 10 per cent. dividend. There was, however, no suggestion by the Chairman that they would undertake to assist consumers by reducing the price of foodstuffs during 1927, nor was there any suggestion that they would increase the standard of life of the employés of the firm. In this brief statement I think I have submitted sufficient evidence to show the President of the Board of Trade that the question of giving the Food Council increased powers needs very careful consideration.
I will pass now to the other part of the Motion, which deals with fuel. Yesterday the Prime Minister, answering a question in this House, said:
As I have stated on many occasions, the question of putting into operation the recommendations of the Royal Commission is primarily and mainly for the industry itself. So far as it rested with the Government to make them effective, there are I think only two points on which we have not already taken action. These are the recommendations that the State should purchase the property in minerals and that local authorities should be given statutory power to trade in coal."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April 1927; cols. 1868½9, Vol. 204.]
I take it from that that the Government have decided not to set up selling agencies for the purpose of distributing coal. This is no new problem. In 1922 a Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee of the Secretary for Mines expressed the view that those responsible for the distribution of coal should take immediate steps to render considerable reductions possible in most of the items of cost. There was a further inquiry in 1924, when the Secretary for Mines endeavoured to ascertain whether any reduction had been effected in those costs. The fact that lowest Summer prices for coal were higher in 1923 than in 1922 and again rose in 1924, points in the opposite direction.
In order that the House may know the exact situation to-day as compared with pre-stoppage days, I will give some
figures, relating to a coal-producing district which are very illuminating. In April, 1926, 146,629 persons were employed in this district, and in January, 1927, 124,700 persons, a decrease of 21,929. The output during the month of April, 1926, was 2,946,990 tons. In the month of January this year it was 2,872,726 tons, or a decrease of 74,264 tons. When we get down to the output per person we find in April, 1926, it amounted to 20 tons 2 cwts., and in January this year it was 24 tons 13 cwts. To boil it down a little further the output per person per shift worked in April, 1926, was 19.59 cwts., and this year it was 21.85 cwts. From these figures it will be seen that the workers are giving their full quota to increased production.
Take the question of wages. In April, 1926, the wages in the district I am dealing with amounted to 10s. 3d., and in January this year it was 8s. 4.34d., or a reduction of Is. 8d. per ton. The average output per shift in 1927 was just over the ton and just under the ton in 1926. With reference to cost other than wages in April they were 5s. 2.72d. and in January, 1927, 4s. 6.23d., or a reduction of 7.d. per ton, and this after all has been put into operation that the Prime Minister promised as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. In January, for the district I have mentioned, the average price for all classes of coal at the pithead was 14s. 7d. per ton. In face of these facts I leave it to hon. Gentlemen opposite to consult their own experience and to compare this price of 14s. 7d. with the prices they are paying to-day for coal for domestic use. To day the Secretary for Mines gave the latest figures for the prices being charged in various parts of the country, and he informed us that he was not in a position to give us the pithead prices. I have given those prices for one district from the last ascertainment issued. The Minister for Mines states in his reply that in London the price of household coal ranges from 39s. to 51s. per ton; in Glasgow from 33s. to 37s. 6d. per ton; in Birmingham from 38s. to 49s.; in Man chester 36s. 8d. to 45s.; and in Sheffield from 36s. 8d. to 43s. 4d. per ton. When we compare those prices with the pithead price of 14s. 7d. per ton I think the President of the Board of Trade must realize that there is room for careful considera-
tion of the prices charged for fuel in this country at the present time. On a number of occasions I have made an appeal to the Government to inquire into this matter, and I have given very definite examples of very heavy profiteering in the price of coal between the pithead and the consumer's home, and I hope that as a result of moving this Resolution the Government will face the situation with a view to doing something of real service on behalf of the consuming public of this country, I notice there is an Amendment down on the Paper which declares
That an informed public opinion is the better method of securing reasonable prices of food and fuel rather than the cumbrous system of control.
I want to suggest to those hon. Members who have put their names to this Amendment that the Resolution I am proposing does not advance any particular system, but it urges the Government to take adequate measures as a result of experience. We on this side of the House know that the Government are not prepared to put into operation a system of control, and my Resolution has been prepared in such a way that we want to assist the Government by passing a Resolution which will enable them to use any method they like for the purpose of giving the consuming public of this country any advantages that can be obtained. The experience of the Food Council shows the need of greater powers being given, and if the Government have set up a Food Council why not follow that up by appointing a Fuel Council and give both those councils sufficient power to enable them to operate in such a way as will keep prices within reasonable bounds.
I know many people would object to the control methods which were adopted during the War, and personally I object to them. There was one very effective power which was given during the War and it was the power to examine books and see what prices were being charged, and this made people realise that they could not charge the public whatever price they liked. It may be a good thing to educate public opinion, and I believe in that process. I suggest to the President of the Board of Education and to the Secretary for Mines that if they decided to give more powers to those councils which they have in operation, and those which they may decide to set
up, it would have a great effect in educating the profiteers in the direction of realising their full responsibility and their duty to the citizens of this country. The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines are ordained to render useful public service, but in the third year of office of the present Government they must feel very despondent that they have made no progress towards producing that higher standard of life which they have talked about and which they have expressed the desire to bring into operation.
This Resolution gives the Government an opportunity of realising what powers they possess with the voting strength behind them. It fixes no line but leaves the Government open to use any method they like to obtain the results we have in view. They can initiate what schemes they think right and proper. They can call the attention of those self-styled patriots the profiteers to the true meaning of patriotism, and how it should be expressed. Powers of this kind will give Members of the Government the opportunity of ensuring that their efforts have not been in vain, and they will have been given a chance of rendering a great service to the people of this country by a real step towards progress.

Mr. DUNNICO: I beg to second the Motion.
This proposal has been moved in a very lucid speech by my hon. Friend the Member for the Blaydon Division of Durham (Mr. Whiteley). He has rightly pointed out that, this question of food and fuel prices determines the very basis of the cost of living, which is a very important and a very urgent problem. My hon. Friend has given a number of instances which go to show that, in the case of many staple foods, and in the case of fuel, not only are the prices exorbitant, but the profits are enormous. One might spend a considerable time in giving case after case of unduly high prices of food and other commodities. One has only to turn to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debates which have taken place in this House on this very question; to find case after case which has never been refuted. My hon. Friend the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) some time ago gave an instance of maladministration in distribution. It was the case of a cargo of
2,500 bags of cocoa brought from the West Coast of Africa to Holland. It was intercepted on the way, bought by Liverpool merchants, and sent round by the south to the Mersey. When it arrived in the Mersey, it was sold to a New York merchant and transhipped across the Atlantic. When it got to New York, it was sold to a Philadelphia merchant and placed on the railway, and the Philadelphia merchant sold the whole cargo back to a Liverpool merchant, so that it had to come across the Atlantic again to this country. The whole cost of that, of the unnecessary carriage, and the unnecessary commissions, was added to the cost of that cocoa, and the consumer had to pay.
Let me take another illustration. The "Morning Post," which is not notorious for its sympathy with the Socialist Party, some time ago published a statement that in one year £175,000,000 was paid by the consumers of this country for meat, bread and milk, after paying 10 per cent. to every producer and distributor through whose hands those commodities passed. Then take the question of wheat, to which reference was made by my hon. Friend. When we remember that an increase of 1d. in the price of the 4-lb. loaf adds £10,000,000 a year to the bread bill of this country, and when we know that, under a proper system of control, the present price of the 4-lb. loaf might easily be reduced by 2d., that means that every year the people of this country are paying an extra £20,000,000 for bread. In August, 1924, the price of the 4-lb loaf in this country was S½d, and, owing to rigging of the markets, it jumped up from 8½d. in August, 1924, to l1d. in March, 1925. That increase of 2½d. on the 4-lb. loaf added £25,000,000 a year to the bread bill of the consumers of this country. Again, one may point out that the existing system has been condemned by every inquiry of an independent character that has been set up. One could quote from inquiry after inquiry showing that they are unanimous in stating that the present system, or lack of system, penalises the producer, who often needs encouraging, and also penalises the consumer, because you have between the two a body of men, many of whom are superfluous, exacting a very heavy toll from the purchasers of this country. My hon. Friend made refer-
ence to the Commission set up by the Government. On this side of the House we criticised that Commission. We criticised it upon three grounds. We said that the personnel of that Commission did not give us any assurance that there would be any real, drastic inquiry into the present system of distribution.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does the hon. Member mean the Food Council?

Mr. DUNNICO: Yes. We also said that throughout the inquiry there was a tendency, on the part of the majority of the members of that Food Council, to accept the present system as being to a very large extent satisfactory. The third objection that we had against it was that it did not possess the requisite powers to put into operation even its feeble findings and pious opinions. The burden of our charge to-night is this, that the present Government, even on the findings of a Commission which was very moderate in its findings, have not really taken any action to put those findings into effect or to relieve materially or substantially the present situation. We are asking the Government to-night what they are going to do. The nineteenth century solved the problem of production. There is no difficulty to-day about the question of production. Our powers of production have been so enormously increased that to-day, if one took away the restriction of output and the manipulation of the markets, the powers at our disposal are great enough to produce all that is required to keep the people of this country in decency and efficiency. Our charge is that, while we have solved the problem of production, we are simply tinkering and playing with the problem of distribution. It is a somewhat ghastly reflection upon our so-called modern civilisation that, when Providence grants her bounties and her plenteous harvests, the greater the bounties and the more plenteous the harvest the more acutely the producer suffers, and the consumers themselves get very little benefit from that which is produced. I see from the Order Paper that two hon. Members of this House are responsible for an Amendment to this Motion. There are Amendments and Amendments, and, if I may be pardoned for saying so, I have seldom, since I came into this House, read an
Amendment more at variance with the facts than the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper to-night. It declares that experience has shown that an informed public opinion is a better way of securing reasonable prices than Government control. With all due deference to my hon. Friends, I want to say that that statement is in direct contradiction to the facts. May I give an illustration of informed public opinion? In 1919, we had a Coal Commission, the Sankey Commission of Inquiry, and the evidence taken by that Commission startled and shocked the conscience of the nation. The Judge who presided over that Commission said that the conditions of labour, wages, hours and housing—the whole standard of life—were indefensible.

Lieut-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Did public opinion back him up?

Mr. DUNN1CO: Public opinion did. Public opinion was shocked. The public opinion of the country was absolutely with the miners at that time. Eight years have passed away. What is the result? The whole standard of living, the whole condition of the mining population of the country is worse than when we were told by that Commission that it was absolutely indefensible. Therefore we say you want something more than an enlightened public opinion. You want a Government which has the courage to back up enlightened public opinion and to attack the vested interests that exploit the community and rob the nation. The Amendment goes on to state that a system of control will either be ineffective or will involve the State in loss. I wonder if the hon. Member who tabled the Amendment has ever read the Auditor-General's Report and the Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets of 1920 and 1921. I wonder if he has ever heard of the Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Food. I wonder if he has read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say about them when he almost became a Socialist because of the amazing success of Government control. I wonder if he has ever read the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who was in that Government. I wonder if he has ever read the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as to the advantages of control.
The terms of the Amendment are absolutely opposed to experience. I can quite believe the hon. Member would not have very much faith in his own Government controlling these things, but with an efficient, businesslike Government in power we could show even better results than those already on record. I seldom address the House, and perhaps hon. Members will not resent it if I make an appeal. I have never disguised my love for this country. There is no land to me which is so good as this land. No one loathes and hates strife and conflict, whether it be in the industrial field or in the international field, more than I do. I would to God we could develop a greater spirt of co-operation and good will! But how can you expect peace in the face of great evils such as those we are discussing to-night—preventable evils? How can you expect peace so long as these things continue?
9.0 p.m.
We have had a great Debate to-night upon China. The Government in office—and I do not blame them—feel that they are justified in defending the lights of British nationals in China, but if you are prepared to do that and spend millions upon it, are not the rights of the toiling masses in this country also worthy of consideration? You are quite prepared to introduce a Bill to try to prevent the workers of the country1 from adopting certain methods to get their rights. Why are you not prepared to introduce a Bill to stop people from exploiting and robbing these people and lowering their standard of life? After all said and done, you have got to face it. Things cannot remain as they are. You cannot wonder if men become savage and bitter and say extreme things when their life is one grim struggle from the cradle to the grave. I do not want revolution. I want orderly progress, but the thing called democracy, harmless enough when lulled to sleep with political sleeping draughts, can become a terrible beast if it awakes and finds it has been deceived. There are men to-day into whose souls the iron has entered. I do not care much about party. I do not care who does a good thing if someone does it. I will support the Government every time it takes steps to alleviate the distress and misery of countless thousands of our own people who are living in it day after day. If you tell me
these things are inevitable, then we have come to a very bad position. A civilisation which cannot provide a decent standard of living for the vast masses of the people is not worth preserving. I had rather be a pagan, a savage living under primitive conditions, hunting and fishing by day, breathing the pure air of God's atmosphere and sleeping under the silent stars at night than be condemned to live under circumstances and conditions that millions of our fellow workers are doing. If this is the price we have to pay for civilisation—I do not believe it is, but if it is—I say, with all respect to this House and with all deference to you, Sir, damn civilisation. Civilisation is not worth maintaining unless it can secure to the toiling masses of our people a decent standard of life, and, because I think this Motion is a step in that direction, I have the utmost pleasure in seconding it.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
is of opinion that experience has shown that an informed public opinion is a better way of securing reasonable prices of food and fuel than a cumbrous system of control, which would either be ineffective or would involve the State in financing and managing many businesses at the expense of the taxpayer and without any guarantee of benefit to the consumer.
I welcome the speech of the Mover of the Motion for its moderation. I really do not know what the gist of the attack was, he was so moderate in his views. He seemed to neglect the views so widely held by his own party as to the necessity of the State controlling the distribution and production of all the necessities of life. He disguised that point. All he suggested was that we should give a few extra powers to the Food Council. The hon. Member who seconded went a little further and suggested that we were only tinkering and playing with the problem of distribution. He was opening the way to the State taking over the problem of distribution. I think that was in his mind far more than in the mind of the Mover, and while I admired his peroration, and agree with him that what we want is a better spirit of goodwill and co-operation, where we differ from him is in the methods by which this can be reached. We all desire to prevent the
toiling masses from being exploited by profiteers, but we believe that instead of the State doing that in the way suggested by the Opposition, by means of public opinion, and by limelight being thrown upon the profiteering, that profiteering will cease.

Mr. DUNNICO: It is worse to-day than ever.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: No. Instead of its getting worse, prices are falling slowly. Last year was a bad year, owing to economic disturbances in this country. We cannot take last year, or the autumn of last year, as a fair reason why prices have increased, as they have in many cases. It was an unusual year owing to industrial disturbances. On the whole, in the last few years prices have been steadily going down. Let me give the hon. Member a few figures of the average retail prices for three or four necessities of life during the years 1921 and 192G. In 1921, the average price of bacon was 2s. 3½d., and in 1926 it was 1s. 7¾. The average price of butter in 1921 was 2s. 7½d., and in 1926, 1s. ll¼d. The average price of margarine in 1921 was 10d., and in 1926, 8¼d. The average price of sugar was 7¼d. in 1921 and 3½d. in 1926. Throughout these last few years prices have been steadily but slowdy going down.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) alluded to the prices of bread going up in 1924 and 1925. In 1925, the Food Council was appointed and the first question they began to investigate was the question of the prices of flour and bread. The Food Council was formed for the protection of the public. It was given powers to investigate the subject, to call witnesses and report, and the result has been that limelight and publicity have been thrown upon the whole of the question of food prices. The existence of the Food Council is a safeguard which ensures the proper application and adjustment of the scales which they fix from time to time according to the price of flour. The other day a member of the Master Bakers and Confectioners' Protection Society wrote a letter stating that they were going to act on their own. What did the Food Council do? They said:
It will be the duty of the Council to watch the price-fixing operations of your society, and they will not hesitate to call public attention to them if in the opinion
of the council they are improperly exercised.
The publicity directed to that matter has resulted in public attention being fixed upon the prices of bread, and the prices of bread to-day are not unreasonable.

Mr. J. JONES: Do not talk rot.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member has no right to make an observation of that sort.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Since the Food Council has been in being—it started in October, 1925—prices of food have gone down by 11 points from what they were two years ago, while the general cost of living has only gone down about five points. Therefore, the conclusion is that the prices of food have been steadily going down at a greater rate through the inquiries of the Food Council, even though prices of other commodities have not been inquired into as yet. I think we may say justly that the Food Council has been to a great extent responsible for that reduction by their work. We all know that during the War there was a Food Controller. The country was divided into, I think, 15 divisions and 1,800 areas, and there was something like 33,000 officials. I do not believe the Mover of the Amendment would set up again food control. I understand that he objects to it; but I wonder whether hon. Members on the back benches opposite object to it to the same extent.

Mr. WHITELEY: We should object to it under the present Government.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Would the hon. Member prefer it under his own Government?

Mr. WHITELEY: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Just the same as in Chester-le-Street.

Mr. J. JONES: Is that a permanent joke?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Do hon. Members opposite think that the people of this country really desire to establish food control, with all the in-quisitorialness of that control, all this looking into the doings of 300,000 or 400,000 retailers and traders, and examining their accounts, and all that
sort of thing? We are not Germans. The Germans are accustomed to things of that kind but we are not accustomed to that kind of thing in this country. We encourage our own private enterprise and if there is any profiteering, well, the more publicity we can get in the Press with regard to it the quicker will the prices fall. The Press and public opinion have had a good deal to do with bringing about reductions in prices.

Mr. JONES: What about prices in the Press?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: That has nothing to do with it. We are talking about food and fuel. The bakers are generally observing to-day the Food Council's scale of bread prices. The Food Council have started to investigate the question of tea. One of the leading tea merchants, in February, predicted that there was going to be a general rise in the price of tea. The Food Council started to investigate and, as the inquiry proceeded, instead of the prices of tea rising, they have been steadily dropping, clearly as a result of the Food Council's inquiries. The more inquiry we can get into these matters the better. We welcome it, and we hope the Food Council will carry on.
Hon. Members who would set up food control must realise the expense of food control. What does the Food Council cost the State? The 12 members of the Food Council are unpaid; they give their services free. The whole cost of the Food Council, including travelling expenses, the expenses of witnesses and the expense of the permanent secretarial staff is £2,613 a year. The work they do, surely, is well worth that. If, on the other hand, you set up food control with 30,000 or so officials, the cost to the State will be vast, and it will come out of the cost of foodstuffs or out of extra taxation. The Food Council have also inquired into milk prices. They have gone into the whole question and are still inquiring into it. We want to know, for instance, and we need satisfaction on the question, the difference of price paid to the producer and that paid by the consumer at the present time. The more limelight we can throw upon that question, the sooner we shall get the prices reduced. That is the way to do it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that the Linlithgow Committee threw all the light that was possible on that question?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: This question is being gone Into very carefully at the present time, and the more co-operation we can get between the milk producers on the one hand and the milk consumers on the other, the sooner we shall get a final agreement which will arrive at the true price, and we shall avoid it going through the hands of extra middlemen, who are increasing, and putting up the price. Hon. Members will no doubt remember that during the War, when we had food control,, the Government at one time tried to control meat or, shall I say, rabbits. The rabbits disappeared; there were no rabbits—

Mr. J. JONES: Now they are Tory candidates.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The Minister of Labour in the Labour Government told us that he could not produce rabbits out of his hat; even without Government control he was not able to produce any rabbits. They disappeared. The Food Council have inquired into the question of meat prices, and have suggested that we should do away with publication of the prices in Smithfield market and instead that prices should be put up in all retail shops so that the public should know in their own shops what the prices arc. They consider that the prices in the Smithfield market are very misleading and that they rather help to keep up prices generally throughout the country. The Butchers' Federation is considering this proposal, and it is hoped they will adopt it very shortly. There has also been an inquiry into bacon prices, and while there has been a drop in the wholesale prices of bacon, there has also commenced a drop in the retail prices. The whole object of the Food Council is to inquire into the exorbitant prices of food, and the work they have done so far has been very good. We believe that a Food Council continuously interested in food prices is a far more effective organisation than a State trading body with a large staff, and with all the difficulties which always attach to such organisations. The fact that its
members are not paid but are doing the work free is a very great asset. They are also to examine fruit, vegetables and all other foodstuffs.

Mr. JONES: What about fish?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Fish prices are being examined at the present time. Lord Bradbury, the Chairman of the Food Council, says:
Our future programme includes investigations into the prices of fish, butter and bacon. We deal with only one subject at a time. Our investigation into fish prices has already begun. It is a curious fact that since our inquiries began, fish prices have fallen from 127 points to 114 points.
There is always a certain number of people who would like to have their food practically free, if they could get it. Hon. Members opposite promised the electors all sorts and kinds of things; enormous wages and free food. Let me quote some words from Kiubysheff, the chairman of the Supreme Economic Council in Russia, which, of course, is the Mecca of hon. Members opposite, the country to which they look. On 30th March this year, he said:
we cannot continue to live while the present high prices obtain, which are three times higher than the prices abroad—
That is, in other countries where private enterprise obtains—
and two and a half times above Russian pre-War prices, and in spite of all our efforts prices are still rising in several branches.
That is what is going on in the Mecca of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They may pay short visits to Russia, but they always come back again. It is only really what we should expect to find under State control, which exists in Russia. Where there is no competition, prices are bound to rise. You have a monopoly, the dead hand of the State controlling things; and without competition prices must inevitably rise. In Russia whole classes of workers, including elementary school? teachers, only get £3 a month, and how can they live when prices rise and rise Yet, hon. Members opposite think that everything in Russia is perfect. They always like to look at Russia. Let me read what a famous novelist has said after travelling in Russia.

Mr. LANSBURY: Did you say a novelist?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Yes, she spent a few months in Russia, and she says:
Everything in Russia is by order of the Government. Everything in consequence is amazingly expensive. A cup of tea or a bath cost 7s. 6d.
I do not know which hon. Members opposite would prefer in Russia, a cup of tea or a bath, but if they wanted either, they would have to pay 7s. 6d.
The largest, indeed most of the Russian shops, have been confiscated, bag and baggage, without redress by the State. The service in them is appalling. May I never have to enter a State-owned shop again or pay its prices. There is no competition.
That is the state of the country to which hon. Members are always looking. Here in this country we aim at stabilising prices by means of co-operation between producer and consumer, to reduce the seasonal fluctuations that occur and relate production to demand throughout the year. Co-operation is the antithesis of State monopoly. It is on these lines that we should work. Reasonably cheap and reasonably good articles will never be supplied as long as the State has a complete monopoly. Hon. Members no doubt have had experience of French matches, and they will know how abominable they are. Take the case of butter. You have butter produced by the farmers of this country and the butter imported from New Zealand and Denmark, and competition such as this will always keep prices down. Take meat You have competition from Australia, Canada and the Argentine, as well as the fresh meat in this country. In the case of wheat there is Canadian, Australia and Indian, and wherever you have competition you can be certain that the prices you have to pay will be the lowest. We believe that you will do away with all cases of profiteering if you throw the light of publicity upon them, and that the system which has been adopted by the Government, under which the Food Council investigates the question of all food prices, throwing the light of publicity upon them, getting the housewives of the country to realise where prices are excessive is by far the best way of reducing prices. It is far better than any form of State control, such as is advocated by hon. Members opposite.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
My only complaint against the hon. Member who moved this Motion was his failure to indicate the measures he would consider adequate. I should like, however, to pay a tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico). However much one may disagree with his views, there can be no doubt as to his sincerity. He struck me as being like many enthusiasts in pursuing a will o' the wisp rather than following the hard paths by which all progress is gained. The real danger of State control is that we may cut off the entire sources of supply in the vain hope of cheapening prices. The main bulk of our food supply in this country comes and must come from abroad. I looked up the return of the cultivated agricultural land in this country shortly before this Debate, and I found that 10 years ago it was 32,000,000 acres. Making what I consider a very reasonable allowance of two acres per human being, that would mean that that land would support a population of about 16,000,000. When you consider that much of the land is required for the production of milk, which requires more than two acres per cow, and that much of it is not of very good quality, it will be seen that we would be doing well if we could keep 16,000,000 people on our own soil. In England and Wales that leaves a large surplus to be maintained from foreign sources.
If you tried to control prices, you are up against a difficult problem and a problem which will easily load to international complications. We cannot compel the foreigner to send his food here. He sends it because it pays him, not because he loves us or our people. If he had another market that would pay him better he would send it there. It may be an unpleasant thing for us, but the fact remains that we have developed in this country under the industrial system a very large population which we are bound to feed by the export of manufactured goods. I am not prepared to argue whether that is a good or a bad result, but I do not think any attempt by Government control or Government purchase, which would mean the control of essential foodstuffs, would get the food supply any cheaper or would
guarantee that those necessary foodstuffs would come to us. Once it was known that the Government was in the market the foreign producer would put up the price against us. It is a common experience. The hon. Member for Consett referred to the experience of control during the War. Perhaps he has not had the advantage that I have had of serving on the Estimates Committee and learning the practical details of the winding up of those transactions. If he studies it, he will see that during the later years, after 1920, the large profits made during the War developed into large deficits in nearly every case. There were large stocks left over—

Mr. DUNNICO: Because the Government gave the stuff away.

Captain BOURNE: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Government did not give the stuff away, but sold it at the best price they could get. The price, I admit, was extremely low. It is one of the penalties of putting people into control who have not been personally trained all their lives for that work and who are not personally hit if there is a loss. The man who is purchasing and buying on his own account stands to lose if he makes a mistake in judgment. The Government official stands to lose nothing. If he makes a serious error, it is the taxpayer who has to foot the bill. I do not think you can expect from him either the same degree of judgment or the same caution in buying as from the ordinary private trader. He is not in the same position. Secondly, if you get Government control or Government purchase in any form, the permanent official is hampered by a very curious and complicated financial system which has grown up in this country. I am beginning to doubt whether it is suitable for to-day, but it was devised for the control of finance in this House, and for enabling the Government to answer any question which any Member in any part of the House might choose to ask. To buy successfully, however, you do not want to go and ask the Treasury for permission, saying, "Please may we buy this? I think it will do fairly well," and then have it passed round the office for three or four weeks until someone in power
authorises it. That is what is bound to happen, and in the end, because of the very exact accounting of our financial system, we are bound not to buy at the cheapest price, which is a necessity if we are to succeed.
I really believe that the proper remedy for dear prices is to get the trade of our country back and to export goods overseas as we did before the war. That is where no small amount of liability rests upon hon. Members opposite. In their hearts I think they know that they have not done their best to get trade going since the War. They have supported any restriction which any trade union has imposed; they have defended people who have caused unnecessary industrial trouble. If we export a vast quanty of goods to foreign nations those nations are in our debt and have to send something to us to pay the debt, and what the majority of them have got to send is foodstuffs. In order to pay that debt they have got to sell at much lower prices than they would get in the open market. If hon. Members opposite will study the trade returns before the War, they will find that we, who grew little of our own food could succeed in buying foodstuffs cheaper than many of the nations of the world who grew their own food. That was because our foreign trade was successful, and that is the real way to deal with this matter. Setting up Government control will be a vast expense to the country, an expense which will be reflected in the price of food, and will do good to the country but in the end put another burden on the consumer.

Mr. MONTAGUE: That was not the case during the War.

Captain BOURNE: The hon. Member makes a slight error. In the War it was a case of making a very limited amount of food go round; it was not a question of prices. We had a very limited amount of food to distribute among the population. One of the facts of wartime control is that everybody thought they were entitled to a certain. amount of profit on their capital, a certain amount of payment for their services, and other perquisites in addition to profits. The customers were short, the profits were short—

Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. and gallant Member misunderstood my interjection. Does he not know that under Government
control the price of beef at Smithfield was 4½d. a pound during the War when it was 8d. or 9d. a pound in private shops?

Captain BOURNE: I regret I do not follow the hon. Member. If he will look at the whole of control of prices, he will find it encouraged people to look for higher prices and higher profits. I think the nation has suffered and is continuing to suffer because of the effects of wartime control. It was inevitable in the circumstances because we had not the supplies to go round and could not obtain them. But I do not think it has been a particularly successful method of controlling prices. It has cost the country millions of pounds, and although it was a necessity, yet we must look upon the expense as one of the inevitable results of war and one which we must shoulder regretfully.

Mr. LAWSON: I want to congratulate the Seconder of the Amendment on bringing the Debate back to something like serious discussion. I feel sure that while the Mover of the Amendment was speaking the House must have wondered whether we were sitting in Parliament or in a pantomime. The Seconder of the Amendment spent a good deal of his time in denouncing Government control and management. I am unable to understand how it is that Departments set up and controlled by Liberals and Conservatives for the last century are consistently denounced by those people who have had control. I have had the privilege of serving in a Government Department which gives a definite denial to all the criticisms of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite. The War Office buys wheat and meat in bulk for supply to its own troops. I could tell of the difficulties the Department had in facing some of the great trusts, and of other difficulties which had to be overcome. Yet in 1925 in this House, out of my own experience and with the War Office Estimate before me, I was able to draw the attention of the Committee and of the Secretary for War to the fact that a loaf was produced and supplied to the troops in this country and abroad at 6½d. at a time when a similar loaf, of the same quality, was being sold to the ordinary consumer at l1d. That is only one instance of buying in the bulk by a Government Department
and supplying direct. The same thing can be said of meat.
I want to draw attention to one fact. Sir John Corcoran, who was in charge of the War Office Supply Department, and who for nearly 30 years presided over that department, when he finished his period of service was immediately snapped up as director of the National Union of Manufacturers. We have had illustrations from time to time of the permanent heads of Government Departments being taken over by the people who denounce the Departments over which these officials preside. The Mover and Seconder of the Resolution did not suggest anything of the kind that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have been denouncing. On the contrary, they were very careful to refrain from making any such suggestion. What we are asking the House to consider is that there is a very serious situation in this country, a very serious gap between the cost of production and the price charged to the consumer. It is not the trouble only of the ordinary consumer. It is a trouble even to business men. As to that let me give an illustration.
I think I am within bounds in saying that in the Durham coalfield the piece-rate workmen have lost something like 40 per cent. in wages since the mining stoppage. There may be hon. Members hero who doubt that, but I can assure them it is the fact. It is so well known that an iron master said to me the other day, with a very puzzled expression on his face, "Your men have had great reductions of wages?" and he added, "Yet the price of coke required for our purpose now is 10s. a ton more than it was before the stoppage." He asked me if I could explain how that was. I replied, "I was going to ask you if you could explain how it was." He lives only a few miles from me on the other side of the county. He gets the result of the work of the men among whom I live and work,, and he wants to know how it is that, while we are getting much reduced wages, the coal that he requires costs 10s. a ton more. What is the result? Middlesbrough has had to take 20,000 tons of German coke in order to produce her commodity. I submit that that is a very serious state of things. There is a further illustration in what is happening to the ordinary consumer of coal. The
hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) said the Secretary to the Mines Department had informed him that the retail price of coal in London was from 39s. 6d. to 52s. per ton. I gave the House a case not very long ago where two men produced 11 tons 15 cwts. of coal for £2 l2s. Thus they produced nearly 12 tons of coal for the price at which one ton is sold retail to the consumer. No one could justify a state of things like that. It may be said that there are costs of production in between, but surely ordinary costs cannot account for that difference. Only last week-end we were told' that a great retail coal firm in this city had announced a reduction of 5s. a ton in the price of coal and that those within the ring were threatening what would be done with the parties concerned. There seemed to be a great deal of fact in the statements made, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any knowledge that things of this description are happening. If it is possible to reduce coal by 5s. a ton, the only assumption is that robbery of the consumers has been going on in this city.
One could give many illustrations of the great gap between what the producer is entitled to, and what the consumer is charged and of the effect which rings have upon the consumer in general. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment claim that public opinion is the best force for the reduction of prices. We usually speak here of Conservatives, but they are Tories in the real sense of the word. That is a very old doctrine and is to be found in speeches made in this House early in the 19th Century. When it was suggested that there should be regulation of mines and factories the same attitude was adopted and almost the same words used by the opponents of those Regulations, who claimed to be acting in the best interests of the people employed. Experience has shown that they were wrong. There was at one time in this country a demand for two shafts to each mine so that men would have a means of escape if anything went wrong with one shaft. The argument then used was that "well-informed public opinion" would see to it that proper steps were taken by the employers and that one shaft was quite enough. While the country was debating the matter, a great beam fell down
a shaft in Northumberland and hundreds of men were left in a starving condition and the nation was shocked into taking action. And so it has been stage by stage. The history of the 19th Century is the clearest demonstration that public opinion is only effective in so far as it finds expression through the State in regulating those individual interests which have no regard for the consumer or for the worker. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING: It would have been much more helpful had the Mover and Seconder of the Motion gone a little more into details, instead of generalising so much. They should have told the House at what end of marketing or producing this profiteering was taking place. We hear much in these times of the need for the reorganisation of industry, and of efficiency, and of all these things which cheapen the cost of production, but immediately a few firms, by efficient organisation and improved methods, make a little more than the average rate of profit they are condemned as profiteers. If a firm by slack management or bad methods of production or distribution makes a loss, then I suppose in the eyes of hon. Members opposite, that firm is the ideal type of trading concern and one which we ought to bless. Reference had been made to a large firm of margarine manufacturers. While I know nothing of the firm in. question, I suppose it is true to say that it stands among the highest in the margarine trade and probably it has a high standard of efficiency and a cheap cost of production. But if you are going to standardise prices, if a Government Department is to fix the price for the importer, the merchant, the producer or the retailer, that price must of necessity be fixed for those who are producing at the highest cost, otherwise they will be losing money and must go out of business. It is an encouragement for those who arc producing at the lowest cost, if they are permit led to earn better profits than those who are working inefficiently and producing at a high cost.
Hon. Members who advocate the fixing of prices in this way do not seem to appreciate the ramifications of producing or manufacturing. I am sure there are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who know that profits and losses are pri-
marily made by the volume of output and the volume of turnover. A man may sell dearly and yet lose money. A man may sell cheaply and yet make money. It is all governed by the volume of turnover, and if the Maypole Dairy Company, which has been referred to, were to reduce its turnover and output by one-half, even though it sold at higher prices, it would probably lose money. I never can understand how it is that hon. Members opposite do not seem to appreciate the factors which go to make a profit and the factors which go to make a loss. Whether it is that they have not had much experience of the internal working of business or not, I do not know. Reference has been made to the price of bread. Do hon. Members suggest that the Government ought to fix the price of the flour which comes into this country or the price at which bread is sold? I think Winnipeg has more to do with the price of bread than any Government Department. Canada to-day, in a very large degree, controls the price of flour, and those why buy flour in this country have to submit to the influences at work in Canada which fix the price of flour.
We also hear much about the price of coal—about the pithead price and the selling price and the distributing end, and all that—but nothing is ever said about the various grades of coal. We never hear about the coal which goes on to the slack-heap or about industrial coal. It is always the best coal which averages 30s., 42s. and 45s. about which we hear. I shall listen with great interest to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), who often speaks for the cooperative societies, and who will probably tell us how much lower is the price at which coal is sold by the co-operative societies. This extra 10s., referred to by the hon. Member behind him, may be very high, inasmuch as this is a profiteering price to which he has referred. We shall naturally expect the hon. Member for Hillsborough to tell us that the cooperative societies are selling coal at 10s. less than anybody else, for, of course, they would not profiteer.
The hon. Member who moved the Motion talked about putting money to reserve and said it was wicked and that such money ought to be distributed to the consumers, but there are other people besides large producing companies who
put money to reserve. Co-operative societies put large sums to reserve, and I hope the hon. Member for Hillsborough will tell us when he speaks that they contemplate that in future those reserves are going to be distributed amongst the people who are indulging in mutual trading, because I have always interpreted mutual trading to mean than the profits were mutually distributed to everybody concerned, and, therefore, I shall listen with great interest to what the hon. Member will tell us as to why they put by every year a million or more to reserve. The Seconder of the Motion said that profits are enormous and that the price of food is unduly high. I have a little knowledge of the gross profits in the grocery and provision trades, and I understand that in the grocery trade the gross profits, not the net profits, are somewhere between 12 and 14 per cent. If I am wrong, I shall no doubt soon be contradicted. If anybody in this House will say that the gross profits of grocers and people who are engaged in the grocery trade with a big turnover are only 12 or 14 per cent. and that that is profiteering, I have a lot to learn as to what profiteering means.
I am afraid that a good many hon. Members in this House who talk of profiteering merely use it as a phrase and never define what it means, because, as I said before, the efficiency of a firm makes for profits and not for losses. The Motion seems to suggest that we should have a Government Department to control prices, and we often hear of our war experience of controlled prices. I think that is a very unhappy reference indeed, because my information tells me that the profits were much higher during the War when prices were fixed than either before or since, and my experience teaches me that the competitive system is always the best protection to the public. Healthy competition brings out the most enterprise in the distributing and manufacturing trades.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is that why the grocers are forming a Grocers' Proprietary Articles Association for price fixing?

Sir W. PERRING: The hon. Member knows probably more about that than I do, but he may know that in proprietary articles there are discounts given according to the volume of business. Perhaps
10.0 p.m.
he does not think I know that, and that by a group of retailers buying together they are able to get the same discounts as the co-operative societies are getting. We have been advising the retail traders to combine together and take a leaf out of the co-operative societies' book, and by that means they will be better able to compete in the open market with the distributing concerns with which the hon. Member is identified. I was saying, when I was interrupted, that it is an unhappy illustration to refer to the War experience of control. Everybody who knows anything about retail trade—I do not mean those who think they know, but those who have been in it all their lives—knows that there were more profits made, by the law of averages, when the prices were controlled than before or since that time, because, whatever may be said about the retailer and whatever charge is levelled against him, the mass of the small retail traders are competitive in their enterprise, and although they may vie in friendly competition with one another, they are always keen to get business for themselves if they can, and they do not believe in control or restriction. If you had control you would immediately get monopoly, and, of course, 1 recognise that hon. Members opposite are great believers in control in every sense of the word. They argue, and very often rightly argue, that keen competition leads to the cutting down of wages, and, therefore, they do not like too keen a competition. They believe in control, because when you get control you can then get wages lifted up, sometimes to an uneconomic level.
I may illustrate it in this way. We have now a measure of control in connection with the railways of this country. When the Measure was passed through this House that dealt with the grouping of railways and the setting up of rates and wages tribunals, there was introduced into that Bill a measure of control that has made for high wages, because as most hon. Members will know, it is the duty of the Bates Tribunal to fix the rates for the transportation of goods so as to produce a dividend equal to the pre-War dividend and a 5 per cent. dividend on any new capital. The effect of that is that we have ceased to have any
keen competition in railway rates and that even the trade unions to-day are quite happy to co-operate with the railways and their directors to keep up wages. They do not grumble about the rates, and as a result the poor trader, whether he be a producer or a retailer, is now paying higher rates for his transportation of merchandise than he would have done under a competitive system. But, as a result of eliminating competition in railway freightage, they have been able to maintain wages, and I have no doubt they will take credit for that, but the final effect is that they have raised the price of commodities and affected the cost of living.
It must not be assumed that, because wages have gone up in any particular trade, they are always real wages. You have to consider what is the effect of those railway rates or wages or any other factor on the cost of living, and if, by putting up rates in one direction, or eliminating competition in another, or fixing prices so as to give a profit to the least efficient of those in a trade, you finally raise the cost of food, then the wages so earned are relatively not so high as they might have been under a system of keener competition. Therefore, in discussing this question of food prices and the cost of living, you have always to bear in mind what are the real wages and what is the spending or purchasing power of the money so earned. I have no sympathy with any control that means competition control and the raising of prices. I can quite imagine, under a Labour Government, prices being fixed very high so as to produce a bigger profit, and then in turn the trade unions turning round and squeezing those profits out of the employers' hands, so as to get higher wages. That will re-act again and increase the cost of living, and so we shall get back to the vicious circle that was in operation during the War. Therefore, I shall continue to support any proposal that keeps the individual efforts of the individual trader alive and vigorous, so that we can have keen competition, whether in purchasing, in marketing, or in producing. It leads to greater efficiency and to the elimination of waste, and it makes the manufacturer or the distributor watch keenly where he can cut out wastage through handling things two or three times.
Competition is the greatest safeguard that the public can have and the greatest safeguard that the Government can encourage, because we are not only depending on home trade in this country but on export trade. We require a keenly competitive system in which the best is brought out of the captains of industry, the overseers and those who are organising industry, for the benefit of all concerned, not for the benefit of the manufacturers or those who are immediately looking for profits. It will be found that the competitive system in the end, taking all things into consideration, is the best for this country, because we are a country that depends so much on export trade, and the export trade and the home trade are so married and wrapped up together. You cannot divide one from the other, and, therefore, any suggestion that means fixing rates high and encouraging wages which are uneconomic and unsound, anything that will influence slowing up or kill keenness and freshness in production and manufacture will ultimately increase the cost of all the commodities for export, and we shall be unable to compete in the great markets of the world.

Mr. MARCH: We have heard from the Proposer and the Seconder of the Amendment that the Government and hon. Members on the other side of the House believe that public opinion will do all that is necessary to bring down prices. We have also had a good deal of discussion as to Government control over all necessaries in the shape of food and fuel. Certainly, hon. Members who say so have not read the Motion, otherwise they would not have come to that conclusion. Reference was then made to the Food Council. I do not suppose there is any one on that side, or even on this side, of the House who would complain of the work of the Food Council. We believe the Food Council is doing good work, although they are doing it in a voluntary capacity, and they deserve to have more power than they have got. It is a well-known fact that, as a result of their examination of witnesses and investigations into the whole question of bread, those in the trade decided that when flour is being sold at a certain price bread should also be sold at a certain price. That ought to apply to all those
in the trade, and it would do so if the Food Council had power to impose penalties or fines upon those who evade the price. It has been publicly announced, week after week, that certain bakers in different parts of the country have refused to adhere to the prices which were agreed upon. If they continued to do that for a week or two they would be reaping an advantage, to the disadvantage of those who have reduced the price. Therefore the Government ought to do something to take adequate measures to prevent profiteering in the necessities of life.
If the Government gave the Food Council power to decide in regard to prices, then the prices so fixed should be? enforced. We have heard a good deal to-night about the co-operative movement. If the private traders in the country were as honest with their customers and with the people as the co-operative societies, we should not have much to complain about in profiteering. The dairymen of the country got together in London some time ago, and they decided between them-selves that they would supply milk at a certain rate. They fixed the rate in conjunction with the Food Council. Then the co-operative societies said, "We can supply milk better than that at 1d. a quart less." And they kept on doing so, with the result that the dairymen had to come down in their prices. There, again, you had the dairymen meeting and deciding upon a certain price, but they could not agree mong each other over the matter. I think the Government ought to urge the Food Council to go on faster. We did not hear from the Proposer of the Amendment as to the number of commodities that the Food Council have dealt with. They have not dealt with coal, which is a product in regard to which we have not to fear foreign competition. Whenever we mention coal we are told, "Look at the different qualities in coal." But there are also qualities in flour. When we learn that the price at which coal is being sold at the pithead, 20s. and 23s. a ton, and also that in London it is sold at 50s. and 55s. a ton, some of us would like to know where the difference goes.
I know something about the coal trade, as for some years I had to deal with the men who are concerned with distributing coal in London. A good deal of that
difference in price goes in keeping up some of the magnificent offices of coal merchants in London. The coal prices in London are fixed on the Coal Exchange, and there is not the competition that one would expect there would be among the coal merchants, because they have their associations; they meet; they know what coal is coming into the market and where it is coming from, and they fix the price in London. Then we are told that the Press has a great deal to do with the price of food and the price of coal. But as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said, we would like to know who controls the Press. They are all in the same ring. The Press only talk about prices of things which suit themselves, because, otherwise, they would lose some of their advertisements. Therefore, we do not depend much upon the Press. We desire that the Government should do its duty by the Food Council and by the people of this country, by seeing that they get reasonable goods at reasonable prices, and that there is not so much profiteering.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I confess that sometimes I have wondered whether these discussions of private Members' Motions ever get us any distance. To-night we have had a very interesting discussion, and I was very much interested in the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Law-son). There is one point upon which I would like to differ from him. He objected to leaving things to public opinion, and he said that legislation always had been applied before we ever got any wrongs righted and reforms made. He cited the instance of the claims which had been made that we should have two pit-shafts where previously one existed. He said that the thing was discussed, and that suddenly a terrible accident took place, the consequences of which shocked public opinion and led to legislation, and that it was that legislation which brought about the remedy. I do think that in such matters as improving safety appliances and in doing mechanical things of that sort, you must have public opinion focussed and put into effect by legislation; but it is not entirely a true analogy to apply that to the very complicated financial situations, the very intricate workings of economic law when you
come to try by legislation to fix prices. It is contrary to the Free Trade case. As one who believes in the efficacy of tariffs in certain circumstances, I am not at all prepared to admit that it is of necessity the best thing to leave these matters entirely to the working out of economic law, without some legitimate interference on the part of the Legislature; but, unfortunately, our experience of War control and, in fact, of any attempts at control of prices since, have not been very encouraging. (There has usually been some factor which has escaped notice, which has upset calculations and produced a result contrary to that which those who endeavoured to control the prices wanted.
I was rather disappointed that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, in a very well-reasoned and moderate speech, did not try to give us a little of his own ideas as to why the price of coal was so disproportionate when it got to the consumer to what it was at the pithead. He said that someone in his. constituency had asked him, and he replied, "I want you to tell me." It reminded me of a character in an American book dealing with American politics. When asked an awkward question, his favourite reply was, "You tell me and Pill tell you," and I was rather disappointed to find the hon. Member, from whom I really had hoped to get some information, taking up that attitude. I think with regard to coal, before we come to the action of the retailers in London or other cities and districts, we must remember that from the pithead to the distributing depots of the retailers there are very considerable steps to be taken, and v?ry high rates to be paid for transit, and if these rates are to be materially red-iced, I do not see how, even with increased efficiency in management, you are going to achieve that without reducing railway workers' wages. And when you come to the actual business of taking round coal in carts and distributing it, especially to the small consumer, which is the most expensive method, I do not see how you can pay the men engaged in that trade—the carters and the men who carry the sacks—the wages which they expect.
These things do bulk very largely, and it is for the convenience of customers that people have offices in rather expensive localities. You cannot get these conveniences without paying for them, and
when these people have to pay high rent, rates, and so on, those things must be taken into account, because not even Socialist traders are out for purely humanitarian purposes, but want to make profits. Then we come to the question of what is a reasonable profit, and along with that the question as to how far small individual businesses are best. They, after all, are the ideal of the individualist, because we feel it is for the good of the character of a man to take an independent interest in furthering, by hard work and efficiency, the building-up of a business, making reasonable profits and finding employment for his fellow-men. We think, from that point of view, the small business is much the best type. But in many cases the cost of production and of distribution can be so very largely reduced by a large combination that we may be prepared to sacrifice some of that more definite individualism in the interests of the public at large.
We see that exemplified in the case of the Standard Oil Company. Many people have held up that Company as an instance of an enormous combine making undue profits. From all inquiries I have made into the question it seems to me there is no doubt we could not buy our oil so cheaply to-day had the production and distribution of oil been left to small individual traders. The Standard Oil Company by very efficient organisation over large areas, by the use of great pipe lines, and by other methods, has been able to sell oil a great deal cheaper than it could have been sold if that organisation had not been built up; and so long as a combination like that sells oil more cheaply than it could have been sold if it had not been in existence I cannot think the general public have a very serious cause of complaint. They are getting something they have not worked for put into their hands more cheaply. When, however, we find a deliberate effort by any ring or combine to hold up prices unduly, and to raise them above the prices which would be charged by an individual trader if he were not intimidated, then, I think, the State can step in. If cases can be established where members of a ring threaten those who are undercutting them with what is practically a boycott, with peaceful picketing and all the rest of it, I, as a supporter of the Trade Union Bill, would
recommend the Government—and here I think the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) will agree with me—to introduce into that Measure some ameliorative legislation; but I do not think we could arrive at any solution of the problem by means of the Motion now under consideration.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) has spoken of the advantages which can be obtained for the community through the operations of a great combine such as the Standard Oil Trust. He spoke of the early beginnings of that great oil combine as having been based upon individual effort and enterprise, and its gradual rise to great efficiency by large bulk handling; but as I was listening to him I wondered whether he had ever read the rather famous history of the Standard Oil Trust and its fights against various anti-Trust Acts of Parliament.

Sir P. FORD: I would like to say that I was not going into the morality of the early operations of that Trust, but pointing out that to-day it sells us oil more cheaply—as consumers we ought to be, to a certain extent, grateful for it—than we could have bought it if that Trust had not come into existence. That was my point—it was purely an economic point and not one of morality.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is just as well that we should know that, because the point of what has been said by my hon. Friends was how much more could have been done for the general good if the large profits amassed in the past by the Standard Oil Company had been available for the whole community. Anyone reading the history of the Standard Oil Trust will find that in the days before gas and electric light were within the reach of ordinary people the price of petroleum was raised three times, four times, even five times in a decade, through the operations of that trust. It is just as well when we talk about the present position giving us lower prices to remember that what has been put forward may very largely increase prices. I want to say a word or two in reply to what has been said by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring). The hon. Member represents very largely the small private trader,
and he referred to co-operative trading, in which I am interested. Let me point out that all the inquiries held up to the present in regard to the prices of fuel and food have not resulted in anything detrimental to the history of the co-operative movement. I think I can assure the hon. Member that in any case, under whatever circumstances the profits are made,, in the case of co-operative societies they go back to the purchaser.
Mention has been made of the very large reserves put aside by traders in the food and fuel trades, and the hon. Member said he wondered what was the position of co-operative societies in this respect. We make no apology for putting sums to reserve, but when we do that we do not think they lose their mutual character. Instead of using those reserves as the Maypole Dairy Company do for maintaining the market price of shares or issuing bonus shares, we use our mutual reserves for maintaining discounts on purchases to our customers, or developing other branches of mutuality for the benefit of consumers in general. There is one point on which I feel quite sure the hon. Member will change his mind if he thinks a little harder about it, and that is the point that in his view competition would eliminate waste. All the evidence goes to show that competition produces waste in the distribution of a great many of the prime necessities of the food of the people. In the co-operative movement we have proved that where we could get a reasonable approach to block deliveries we can eliminate so much waste that the cost and the prices are lower and the profits are raised.
If I might give the hon. Member an example of that, I would refer him to the distribution of milk in the City of Derby, which, because of the fact that there is a stable artisan population in the great railway industry there, who are very largely co-operators, the result is that you get block deliveries and no real competition, but you get a lower price for milk and larger profits; the whole thing is more economical. I could repeat many other cases where the absence of competition, provided you have not a monopoly, if you like to call it so, worked purely for private profit, leads to greater efficiency; and there is no reason at all why a development of the co-operative supply of the food of the people, whether
through co-operative societies or through the activities of the State, if that became necessary, would lead to anything in the nature of waste or inefficiency. It would be far more likely to lead to increased efficiency and a saving to the community in general.

Mr. G. PETO: What about farming?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member repeats what was said in the House the other day concerning co-operative farming, and it always seems to give a good deal of amusement to hon. Members opposite. But one need not be ashamed to say, when it is necessary to say it, that a great organisation like the cooperative movement has had to buy its experience, and to buy it rather hard. It has had to buy its experience, but that is not a thing that should excite amusement in hon. Members opposite. It ought to show them that a great working-class movement is willing to experiment boldly in trying to meet the difficulties it is up against in that or any other industry. As a matter of fact, in trying to get to the actual sources of food production in this country, the cooperative movement has met with very great difficulties, but although, in some cases, they have lost money, and, indeed, have decided to give up farming, there are other cases where they are now showing very substantial profits, and they are not going by any means in all parts of the country to be stampeded out of their agricultural experiments.
Having, I think, answered those points which have been raised, I come back to the main part of the discussion of the Motion before the House. May I say that we are very disappointed with the position which has been arrived at as to Government action in this matter? I am quite sure the President of the Board of Trade well agree that the Government of which he is now a Member, in their appeal to the country in 1924—they were not it that moment the Government, but in their appeal to the country they laid very great stress, the Prime Minister particularly, upon the need for taking immediate and drastic action with regard to food prices in this country. In more than one speech during his election campaign in the country, the Prime Minister seemed to want to indicate to the country that it was not so
much a question of the wages paid to the workers of the country, as of what they could buy with those wages. I think that in that statement he was perfectly right. I have seen in my recent visit to Australia, for example, that it is by no means the wage that is fixed, either by negotiation or through the Federal Arbitration Court, that counts; it is what can be bought with the wage when it is fixed.
I agree with the point made by the Prime Minister in his Election address. Where I am disappointed is in the fact that the action of the Government has been so feeble in trying to make the purchasing power of the wages of the people more effective. Although the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury), in moving the Amendment, gave some figures as to reductions in food index prices in the last two years, I am afraid I cannot accept his statement that the appointment of the Food Council, or the inquiries they have conducted, have been very largely responsible for that fall in prices. If, for example, the hon. and gallant Member—I have not got the figures with me tonight, and am speaking from memory—will examine the index figures for wholesale prices of the main imported food commodities, I think he will find that the actual fall in the index figure for retail prices of food has been far more due to variations in the world markets than to any action which has been taken by the Food Council. As I have said, I did not bring these figures with me, and am speaking purely from memory, but I think that as a matter of fact the experience of the last two years has shown quite conclusively that the forecast made by us on this side of the House, that the Food Council had not been endowed by the Government with sufficient powers, and, therefore, would be of very little effect, has been justified. The Prime Minister, as we have had to remind the House again and again, in his famous Albert Hall speech after the last Election, said that he had such a reinforcement of youth and capacity in his new-party that they would be able to cut through the jungle of any vested interests which stood in their path. I have been waiting to see the attack to be made by the Conservative Government through
the jungle of vested interests and I have not seen anything emerge yet of a very startling character, except the attack that is now to be launched upon the trade unions, although I know it has been suggested by other vested interests that it would be as well if the Government would attack co-operative societies as well. But if that should come about, I dare say we shall be as well prepared to meet the attack in that direction as we shall be to meet it in the case of trade unions.
At the same time, I do not want it to be imagined that I agree with all the extreme things that are said about the level of food prices. Very often most misleading things are said. I see figures quoted, for example, as to the price of imported meat at the port of unlading, and I see Australian and New Zealand meat quoted as being sold at 3½d. a lb., taking the carcase, and, a very great deal of song is made of the fact that you have to pay 1s. 4d. to 1s. 6d. for certain joints of that carcase. Statements like that do not lead us anywhere. The average selling price of a carcase like that is very much below 1s. 4d. or 1s. 6d. But when you discount in every possible way extreme statements on the cost of living, there is far too great a range of price between producer and consumer, and that is the problem the Prime Minister promised the Government would devote themselves to if they were given the confidence of the country, and it is the way they have dealt with that that has led us to be disappointed, and to put down this Motion. We think you could do a great deal more than you have done if you gave the Food Council power. Nor do hon. Members on this side want to be associated with attacks upon the personnel of the Food Council or the way in which they are trying to do their work. Although I cannot say that Lord Bradbury appears to be very prominent in the matter, there are members of the Food Council executive who have done a great deal of public service, and have given a great deal of time. I have had to spend a great deal of time, both in my office and in the witness chair, to try to give them information for the purpose of their inquiry, and I want to pay special tribute to the chairman of the executive of the Food Council, who has given a good deal of time and labour to the matter. But I am also convinced that you will never
get the effective results you want unless you give actual statutory powers to these men who have given of their time and of their labour for this purpose.
The President of the Board of Trade would do very well indeed if he would consult, say, the Combine Investigation Department of Canada. Canada is a very much younger and a very much more sparsely populated country than this. In Canada they found, only a short time ago, that it was very essential, if they were to get a proper standard of life, to make the purchasing power of the people go as far as possible, and when they discovered that the producer was not getting a fair price and the consumer was being charged too much, they passed an Act in 1923 which has been the most effective Statute of its kind I have yet come across. I discovered in Canada last year that when unfair prices were being-charged for fruit to the consumer, and the producer was not getting it, but it was going to the jobber and broker in between, under the Canadian Combine Investigation Act an inquiry was ordered and there was a prosecution and the people who were concerned in robbing both the producer on the one hand and the consumer on the other were fined a total of £40,000, spread amongst four defendants, and short terms of imprisonment, though they could have been sentenced to higher terms. There was no difficulty about getting the money. The people concerned paid the fines within three weeks. There is a way for the President to materially strengthen the hands of those who are endeavouring to deal with prices in this country.
It has been suggested to-night, and it is often suggested, that if it had not been for the maintenance of wages in the railway industry things might have been very much better. I would commend those people who raise that question to study a little book which was issued, not by the National Union of Railwaymen, but by the Railway Clearing House, a couple of months ago, which gives a very clear indication of how much the present railway transport notes affect the actual cost of food in this country. I am not going to suggest, speaking from the point of view of one interested in the general distribution of merchandise in the food trade, that I would not like to see railway rates lowered; but I do
say that it is unfair to suggest, on the actual facts, comparing the prices of food to the consumer to-day with the prices of food to the consumer in 1913, and taking alongside with that the proper ratio of the cost of the transport of food to-day and in 1913, that the cost of railway transport is responsible for the present prices of food. That argument cannot be maintained, when the cost of food to the consumer has increased far and away on a higher ratio than the cost of railway transport has increased in the meantime. "We must lock for some other source of leakage to account for the increase in the food prices.
There is a good deal of truth in what was said by one hon. Member opposite about the tendency to maintain high prices as the result of War-time experience. I am not going to say whether that was due to actual State control or not. I think it was far more due to the fact that there was a restriction of goods available, and at the same time an inflation of currency. It is a great pity, in these circumstances, with all these high retail prices, that the Government are not taking steps to see that proper wages are paid in the retail distributing industry. In the meat trade, the drapery trade, the grocery trade and the catering trade, miserable wages are being paid by most of the people concerned, although these high prices are being charged to the rest of the community. I hope the Government will take the Debate to-night in the spirit in which it was intended. It was not intended as a sort of great frontal attack on the Government. We have been far more concerned to get the Government to say what they are doing and what they are prepared to do to deal with the great problem of the cost of living, which they said in their campaign in 1924 was one of the most vital things with which they had to deal.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I certainly have no complaint to make of the manner in which the attack—the minor operation, as it was described—was launched, or the way in which it has been supported. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is always ready to engage on a major scale in a major operation when he has the opportunity. The reason why the attack is a minor attack to-night and why so
little force has been deployed in support of it was not the unwillingness to attack the Government, if the Government is ever open to attack, but because there was a very poor case to be made out. I shall not detain the House very long in proving that this attack has indeed been small. The House will observe that the attack is general. Very seldom did it come down to the particular, and when it dealt with the particular, with this or that price, hon. Members on this side of the House were able to give chapter and verse in every case.
This Motion, framed in general terms, states that prices are grossly and unfairly high, it alleges that the Government have done nothing to reduce them, and should take some further course. What course the Government are supposed to take has not been stated by the Mover of the Motion, because I think he did not want to commit himself wholeheartedly to the only two possible alternatives, complete control and nationalisation. He did admit in process of examination that he liked control and nationalisation, provided they were administered by a Socialist Government, and he felt that if nationalisation was under my direction it would be rather meagre. Let me come to the charge that prices are excessive. The evidence given in support of this was deplorable, and as a matter of fact prices have steadily fallen. The hon. Member said that if prices have fallen it is not due to the action of the Food Council but to the fact that world prices have fallen and that the retail prices have followed suit. I agree that nobody can control world prices, and all it comes to is this that as world prices fall, retail prices fall, and the Food Council has been able to get the advantage of this fall for the consumer, and I am quite certain that if they had not the hon. Member would have been the first to say, "What is your Food Council doing?" We have secured for the consumer the relative advantage due to the fall in wholesale prices.
In the last two years food prices have fallen by 14 or 15 points. That is a very considerable amount. And this is also interesting. The House is well aware of the food figure and the general cost of living figure. The food figure has fallen 14 points or more, but the general cost
of living figure has only fallen eight points during the same period and, therefore, on the very point on which we are being challenged, the food prices, the fall has been much more rapid and much more complete than it has on the general cost of living figure. That is, I think, a complete answer to the first ground on which the attack was made. It is said that the Government have done nothing.; The Mover of the Motion did pay a very proper tribute to the work of the Food Council, and I am glad that such a tribute has come from the benches opposite, particularly to the admirable work of Sir Allan Powell, the Vice-Chairman of the Food Council, who has acted as Chairman of the executive committee. They have a great deal to their credit. Take bread; the most important thing of all. I do not think anything was done in regard to bread in the year 1924. The hon. Member who moved the Motion hit upon the year 1924 and said it was a bad year of high prices in food and fuel.

Mr. WHITELEY: I said 1926.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, the hon. Member referred to 1923, and then said that in 1924—

Mr. WHITELEY: Fuel, not bread.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member was in office in 1924, or his party was in office, and Mr. Shinwell, then the Goverment expert adviser on this matter, after various committees of inquiry had considered the problem, thought he was going to succeed. He published a great White Paper and took into consultation the co-operative societies. He said to the co-operative societies: "Here is your chance. Look at these distributors of coal; they are charging excessive prices. I am not able to prove that they are excessive, but I feel it in my bones that they are excessive, and it will be for the co-operative societies to help. You have a good cooperative Government in office. We will give all the help who can and who will issue a clarion call to the co-operative societies to come out and save the nation." I cannot find that one single co-operative society reduced the price of coal by one single penny. The hon. Gentleman opposite was asked to-night whether the cooperative societies were selling coal cheaper than the ordinary retailer. He said he had not the figures with him. I
have inquired, for I have been anxious to get prices down. Every time I inquired, when I found prices were not coming down fast enough, I said: "What, are those co-operative societies doing; will not they come in and help? There are no politics in the co-operative movement; they are all out for the good of humanity, and they will be ready to help the poor in London. What are they doing about it? Will they not come out and reduce the price of coal? They are not parties to any ramp which takes place on the coal exchange. I regret to say that on no single occasion have I ever been able to find one co-operative society which had sold at a penny a ton even cheaper than those wretched retailers.

Mr. J. JONES: That is not true.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I shall be delighted to hear of a case if there be one co-operative society which sets an example to all the thousands of other retailers.

Mr. JONES: On a. point of Order. I am a consumer of co-operative coal, and all through the war period and since we have always had a reduction of 1s. 6d. a ton.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If they were selling cheaper, the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to make the point. In spite of the fact that the country had been deprived of coal and started with no coal stocks after the long stoppage, and when everyone had assumed that prices would remain high for much longer than they have, what is the fact to-day? Because the consumer has been wise enough to buy with discretion—which is the way in which you do get prices down far better than by control, for coal control cost this country millions of pounds without any benefit to the consumer—he has brought prices down, with the result that in spite of our starting with every handicap, to-day prices of coal are as low as they were this time last year before the stoppage took place.

Mr. LAWSON: Wages have been reduced.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In many places good wages are being paid. The hon. Gentleman really cannot have it
both ways. What he is challenging the Government on to-night is that prices are too high, and I am answering him with a fact which he cannot dispute, and that is that the price has come down so that to-day it is as low as it was this time last year. Therefore, there is no ground for the charge that prices are excessive, and, indeed, not a single proof has been advanced. As regards Government action, the price of bread has been stabilised; the Food Council have introduced and the traders have accepted a ratio by which, as the price of flour falls, so the price of bread falls. That arrangement is almost universally accepted throughout the country. Out of all the thousands and thousands of places in this country, we are told that there are 18 places where that is not being carried out in its entirety. I think that is a most admirable result. Then I was told that they had not been successful with milk, because the summer prices of milk should start at the beginning of April. As a matter of fact, I understand that they have been successful, and that the summer price is practically universal this April throughout the country. Then the Government have another great achievement to their credit—the Short Weight Act, which we passed last Session and which ensures that in all the essential articles of food the consumer shall know the weight that he is receiving. Let us be fair about the matter. Has the Government done nothing? The Labour Government could have passed a Short Weight Act in 1924. They did not do so. We passed the Act, and we are said to have done nothing.
The price of food has gone down 14 points while the present Government have been in office; the price of bread has been stabilised; the summer prices of milk begins in April; and we have got the whole field of food covered by a Short Weight Act. We are told that in spite of these successes there should be some system of control. I affirm that all experience shows that control is costly and that it does not bring benefit to the consumer, because inevitably the controlled price is far higher than the price at which the efficient producer can produce. That happened all through the War. If you adopt a system of control you cannot do so in a haphazard way. You have to take one by one every process in a busi-
ness; you have to control the price from the beginning to the end; and that inevitably drives you into taking over the whole of the business. I wish that those who talk so glibly about control would read the Report of the Imperial Conference of three years ago. There the Ministers from the Dominions and from India sat with us to consider whether such control was possible. Unanimously they reported that control would be costly, that it would be inefficient, that it would tend to raise prices rather than lower them, that it would be of no value to the consumer, and that it would involve the State in the process of taking

over each industry upon which the experiment was started. That, of course, is what hon. Members want. We do not want it. We do not think it would be an advantage to the consumer; we know it would be a grave disadvantage to the taxpayer and we arc quite content with the results which we are obtaining at the present time.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 201.

Division No. 79.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Ammon, Chariot George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Button)
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Hollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, J.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Clowes, S.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Westwood, J.


Gillott, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben
Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Agg-Gardnor, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Blundell, F. N.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Albery, Irving James
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Clayton, G. C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Atholl, Duchess of
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cope, Major William


Atkinson, C.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berkt, Newb'y)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Burman, J. B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Oeritend)


Bennett, A. J.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bethel, A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Campbell, E. T.
Daikeith, Earl of


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dixey, A. C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Major I.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lamb, J. Q.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Loder, J, de v.
Sandon, Lord


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Maclntyre, Ian
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
McLean, Major A.
Smithers, Waldron


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Ganzonl, Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gates, Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Strauss, E. A.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, F. B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Granfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Templeton, W. P.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hammersley, S. S.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Hannon, PatricK Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harland, A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Waddington, R.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nuttall, Ellis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hawke, John Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Penny, Frederick George
Wells, S. R.


Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Hentey)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dafrymple-


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Perring, Sir William George
Wiggins, William Martin


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hills, Major John Waller
Philipson, Mabel
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hilton, Cecil
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Radtord, E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Raine, w.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wolmer, Viscount


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rentoul, G. S.
Womersley W. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rice, Sir Frederick



Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Ropner, Major L.
Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury and Captain Bourne.


Resolutions agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. KELLY: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [31st March.]

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOE REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1927.

CLASS VII.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £57,410, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1928, for expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £036,845, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1928, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain Expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."

3. "That a sum. not exceeding £966,368, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to deft-ay the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1928, for expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Building, Ancient Monuments and Brompton Cemetery."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £386,130, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment
during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1928, for expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £139,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1928, for expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."

CEOWN LANDS (No. 2) BILL.

Captain Briscoe, Mr. Ernest' Brown, Captain Fergus Graham and Sir Henry Slesser nominated members of the Select Committee on the Crown Lands (No. 2) Bill.—[Colonel Gibbs]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ERRIBOL ESTATE (SALE).

[The following record of speeches should be substituted for that published in the Official Report of Wednesday, 6th April, 1927, cols. 2227–2232.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I do not propose at this late hour to debate the merits of the purchase and sale of the estate, farm, and sheep stock at Erribol. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), a week or two ago, made out a case against the sale and for the investigation of this transaction. We obtained, I think I am justified in saying, the assent of the great body of hon. Members, at least the great majority of those representing Scotland, and it certainly convinced public opinion, as reflected in the public Press of Scotland. You, Sir, pointed out that there was a certain disadvantage and inconvenience in placing on the Order Paper week after week questions which were meant to elicit the information which we want. I have, therefore, adopted this method of obtaining the information which I desire and which public opinion in Scotland demands. I gave the Secretary of State for Scotland notice of these questions a week ago. My first question
to him is put in order to clear up the facts as to certain information which has reached me from various respectable individuals, mostly Scottish sheep farmers, but in one case an English valuer, to the effect that the arbiter, whose good faith the Secretary of State on the last occasion hotly defended, but which no one on this side of the House to my knowledge impugned, was hedged about by certain restrictions which made a proper valuation of the sheep stock impossible. I want to know whether any further intimation was made to the Arbiter by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland amplifying the Minute of Reference? Did any such intimation, after the original Minute of Reference, indicate that the award of prices should be based on certain calculations and figures instead of upon the valuation of each class of sheep? Did the minute of reference excuse the valuer from following the customary practice of making a provisional award before he issued his final award?
Did the purchaser take over the whole of the ordinary sheep-stock on the farm and pay acclimatization value? This is important, because invariably on Sutherland sheep farms, in the sale of sheep stock, the purchaser has been bound to take over the whole ordinary stock of the farm—that is the current phrase—and to pay acclimatisation value on every single sheep, which amounts to 10s. or 15s. a sheep. Not only is it maintained that the purchaser did not have to do this in the case of the Erribol sheep stock, but another point is that a number of people did not offer for the sheep stock who would have been very willing to do so if they had had any inkling that such a universal and onerous condition was to be waived in favour of the purchaser of Erribol.
My third question is: What was the number of shotts from the Erribol sheep stock; is there any precedent on a Sutherland sheep farm for shotting stock after the usual casts for the season have been disposed of? Fourthly: Is there any precedent for shotts being marketed by the outgoing tenant from a Sutherland sheep farm? Fifthly: How was the number of shotts arrived at in the valuation of the Erribol sheep stock; by whom were they drawn? It has been suggested to me—this time by an English informant—that the shotts, or sheep
which were considered not up to the proper standard of the farm in each class, were actually drawn by the purchaser instead of being drawn by the Arbiter. I dare say that is an untrue suggestion, but if so, the Secretary of State will welcome the opportunity of denying it. Then I was informed some time ago, in answer to a question in this House, that certain special agreements were made with the purchaser, varying both the published conditions of the sale at the time the sheep stock was to be put up for auction, and the usual practice in three important respects, one in regard to the sale of five-year-old ewes. In answer to a question, I was informed by the Secretary of State that the departure in this case was very much in favour of the purchaser and against the public. So in respect of the other two points I want to find out whether the departures were in favour of the public or of the purchaser, and I ask what were the special agreements with the purchaser of Erribol in connection with the number of tups—I believe you call them rams in this country—taken over?
What was the total number of sheep stock, including lambs, on the 1st September, 1926? What proportion and classes of the Erribol sheep stock remained in the Board's possession after the transfer of the stock had been made in accordance with the terms of purchase; what arrangements the Board made for carrying the stock until the usual sales for the classes retained; will acclimatisation value be paid by the purchaser on the stock retained by the Board and on the cast owes sold between Whit Sunday and Martinmas as was done by the Board when they purchased the sheep stock on Armadale?
The eventual purchaser first approached the Board tentatively on the 31st March, 1926. That was what the Secretary of State told me, to my surprise, in answer to a question two weeks ago. It was not until the end of August that definite negotiations were opened. Meanwhile, several inquiries were received from other sources. Why should the Secretary of State choose to open negotiations with this particular gentleman to the exclusion of these other inquirers? According to the Secretary of State, in answer
to a question on the 14th February, several inquiries were received by the Board after the public exposure of the property at auction, and I want to know why the emissaries of the Board should approach this particular gentleman, who had been lying low all this time, not with an offer similar to that which other inquirers had refused through his agents, Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley, but with unprecedented terms which they submitted to having dictated to them by the eventual purchaser.
Then I want to ask: Was the representative of the Board who advised the Secretary of State that a sum of £25,000 for the estate, farm and sheep stock of Erribol was less than he was likely to receive for the same subjects from the eventual purchaser on the terms of £10,000 for the estate and on a Martinmas valuation of the sheep stock, the responsible technical adviser of the Board? We in the North of Scotland know these practical servants of the Board who have a very good knowledge of the conditions in the Highlands of Scotland, and, when it was known that this sheep stock was to be sold on a Martinmas valuation, I was advised on all hands, and I informed the Secretary of State in a letter, that it would mean a reduction of one-third on the valuation of that sheep stock. As a matter of fact, it meant more, because of certain other conditions to which the Secretary of State submitted. The best of people make mistakes sometimes and it may be that the District Commissioner did make a mistake on this occasion, but it is inconceivable to me that a man of his experience should have made this mistake, and I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether it was on his advice that he rejected that offer of £25,000.
Then I desire to put some questions to the Secretary of State which he had not time to answer on the last occasion. What figures were suggested as a basis of negotiations for the sale of Erribol by the inquirers whose offers were forwarded by Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley? In one case the Secretary of State said he was offered £25,000. What other offers were made and what replies were returned to those offers? Was it stated that no alteration of the published conditions would be favourably con-
sidered, or were inquirers encouraged to increase their offers on a modification of their proposed conditions? Was the eventual purchaser introduced by Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley, who were the official agents appointed by the Board to sell the estate? Was the bargain completed through them? Through whose agency were the negotiations with the eventual purchaser conducted? Why was no opportunity given to the other inquirers to make competitive offers on the new basis?
Lastly, I would ask the Secretary of State—it is the most important question of all—what is going to be done for the applicants, for these ex-Service men for whom the estate was bought, and who were applying for it when it was sold? The Government are under a definite and honourable obligation to these men. They asked those men for the sheep stock no less than 70 per cent. more than they received from the pluralist farmer who eventually purchased the estate. These men would gladly have given not merely as much as but much more than he gave. They have waited for years for the promises made to them to be fulfilled. How much longer have they to wait, and what steps are the Government going to take?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The hon. and gallant Member assumes, I think, a greater amount of vital interest in Scotland in this one particular problem than really exists, but I am not desirous—and I think I have made it clear to him all through this trouble—of hiding anything in this transaction, nor, indeed, am I here to make excuses for what I have done. If the question is a question as between the offer of £25,000 and the figure which I have obtained, let me make perfectly clear what was achieved by the ordinary method of sale on valuation, as against accepting a blind offer. Against a blind offer of £25,000, which was not a definite offer, I have received in to to £21,818.
Let me come to the questions the hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked.
His first question was: "Was any further communication made to the Arbiter by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland amplifying or restricting the Minute of Reference after he had
received it?" The answer to that question is "No".
Then I was asked: "Did any such communication, or did the original Minute of Reference, indicate that the award of prices should be based on a calculation of figures instead of upon a valuation of each class of sheep?" The answer is "No, except that the 5-year old ewes retained on the farm were by agreement transferred to the purchaser at the average price realised for the cast ewes.
The next question was: "Did it, or did the original Minute of Reference, prohibit or excuse the Arbiter from following the customary practice of making a provisional award before issuing his final award binding upon both parties?" As I have already stated, it is the usual practice for a valuator to issue his award without proposed findings, in connection with the valuation of stock, crops, etc.
Then I was asked: "Did the purchaser take over the whole ordinary stock of sheep on the farm and pay acclimatisation value thereon?" As I have already stated, the purchaser did not take over the whole of the sheep stock on the farm, but the valuation of the stock taken over by him, with the exception of the five-year old ewes, included an allowance for acclimatisation value.
In reply to the next question: "What was the number of shotts from the Erribol sheep stock?" the number was 671.
As regards the next question: "Is there any precedent on a Sutherland sheep farm for shotting stock after the usual casts for the season have been disposed of?"—in the only similar case known to me, the Arbiter fixed the shotting of the stock, after the usual casts for the year had been taken out.
I was asked: "Is there any precedent for shotts being marketed by the outgoing tenant from a Sutherland sheep farm" I know of none.
As to the following question: "How was the number of shotts arrived at in the valuation of the Erribol sheep stock? By whom were they drawn?"—the shotts were drawn by the purchaser and thereafter examined by the Arbiter, who had
power to return any which he thought did not come within that category, to the stock to be taken over by the purchaser.
I was asked: "What were the special agreements with the purchaser of Erribol in connection with the number of tups taken over?" It was agreed with the purchaser, who considered that there were more tups on the farm than were required for the stock, that the arbiter should decide the number of tups to be taken over by the purchaser, and that the surplus would be drawn by the purchaser and sold by the Board.
In reply to the question: "What was the special agreement with the purchaser of Erribol in connection with the transfer of Church property?"—the Board undertook liability for the charge falling on Erribol Estate in respect of expenditure incurred by the heritors in connection with the transference of the Parish Church property to the General Trustees of the Church of Scotland under the Church of Scotland Act, 1925.
I was further asked: "What was the total number of sheep stock, including lambs, on the 1st September, 1926?"The number is 5,030. I cannot agree however, that the date selected is a proper one for arriving at the correct numbers of the sheep stock pertaining to the farm. The lamb sales were not completed and sales for regular cast of stock not begun.
As to what proportion and classes of the Erribol sheep stock remained in the Board's possession after the transfer of the stock had been made in accordance with the terms of purchase, the Board retained—


Ewes
…
336


Gimmers
…
77


Dinmonts
…
1


Tups
…
32


Tup Huggs
…
28


Wedder Hoggs
…
53


Ewe Hoggs
…
176


Total
…
703


representing 3½ per score of stock presented for valuation or 17½ per cent.
As to what arrangements the Board made for the carrying of stock until the usual sales for the classes retained, the stock remaining in the Board's hands were disposed of by sale by auction, or by
private bargain shortly after the valuation had taken place, save in the case of the hoggs at wintering, which were sold at the end of the wintering period.
I was asked: "Will the acclimatisation value be paid by the purchaser on stock retained by the Board and on cast ewes sold between Witsunday and Martinmas, as was done by the Board when they purchased sheep stock on Armadale?" The answer is "No".
I was also asked: "Why did the Secretary of State choose to open negotiations with this particular gentleman to the exclusion of the other inquiries?" As I have already stated on several occasions, I instructed acceptance of a firm offer to purchase after the estate had been exposed for sale by public auction on three occasions. It was the difference between a definite proposition and tentative inquiries that might never have come to anything, while meantime the offerer might have withdrawn.
Further, I was asked: "Was the representative of the Board who advised the Secretary of State that a sum of £25,000 for the estate, farm and sheep stock of Erribol was less than he was likely to receive for the same subjects from the eventual purchaser on the terms of £10,000 for the estate and on a Martinmas valuation of the sheep stock, the responsible technical adviser of the Board?" I deal with the Board as a Board. They have of course, their technical advisers, and I cannot, of course undertake to speak for any particular officer, but the advice was the advice of the Board, in consultation with myself, and the decision was mine.
As to the question: "What figures were suggested as basis of negotiations for sale Erribol by those who made the several inquiries referred to in the Under-Secretary's reply to my Parliamentary Question, 15th February—the only figure suggested by an inquirer was the one which I have already mentioned, namely, a slump sum of £25,000 for the estate and everything on it.
I am afraid that time does not allow me to complete the whole of the answers, hut I will supply them to the hon. and gallant Member.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.